Summary Thirty male and female undergraduates judged pictures of 32 mythological hybrid (part-human, part-animal) figures on three dimensions: human-ness/animality, unpleasantness, and incongruity. Winged humans were judged more human than erect animal-headed, human-bodied hybrids, which were in turn judged more human than hybrids which were neither erect nor bipedal. Humanness/animality ratings of the figures correlated +.83 with incongruity ratings and +.56 with unpleasantness ratings, while incongruity ratings correlated +.70 with unpleasantness ratings. Factor analyses of each set of ratings are reported. Ss asserted that humanness/animality ratings were especially influenced by such factors as the relative extent and number of a hybrid's human and animal body regions; the humanness/animality of a hybrid's head; the number of species which contribute components to a hybrid; replacement of a single midline body region by two bilaterally symmetrical body regions, and vice versa; and a hybrid's incongruity and unpleasantness. Evidence bearing upon Ss' assertions regarding the principles which presumably affect ratings on each dimension is considered.