Background: The way humans perceive and interact with non-human animals is particular to each person, from antipathetic interactions evidenced by fear, aversion or repulsion, to empathy evidenced by feelings of affection, enchantment and interest in the animal. In this sense, herein we investigated the perception of university students about species belonging to different classes of wild vertebrates and the influence of social and educational factors on that. Methods: Data were obtained through online forms answered by 700 university students from nine Brazilian states, 328 females and 372 males, aged between 18 and 65 years. The form had eight sentences to be answered in relation to 17 species of wild vertebrates. The agreement level for each of these sentences was to be indicated using a five-point Likert scale. The sentences were designed to assess aesthetic, risk, utilitarian, and preservation perceptions attributed to each species by students. Results: We found that species perceived as useful by the students are generally also perceived as beautiful and as those that should be preserved. On the other hand, we found similarity between the species perceived as ugly and those that should not be preserved; and between the species perceived as harmful and those considered dangerous. Female and lower-income students more often agree that animals are harmful. We found that perceptions of danger in relation to animals were predominantly associated with younger respondents. However, this did not lead to less support for conservation among these students, as students of all age groups agree that species should be preserved. Our results show that students’ knowledge area was an important predictor associated with empathetic and antipathetic perceptions. Environmental area students showed greater empathy in all analyzed categories (beauty, usefulness, harmlessness, and preservation) than non-environmental areas students. On the other hand, students from the area of the exact sciences showed greater dislike in all analyzed categories than students from other areas. We found a strong relationship between the areas “Environmental” and “Humanities, Languages and Arts” for the attitudinal factors associated with utility and preservation, suggesting a similar empathetic worldview for students in these areas. Conclusions: We found that the perception directed towards wild vertebrates varies according to the gender, age, income and study area of the students, in addition to the taxon considered. Finally, our results indicate that negative perceptions should be taken into account in environmental education efforts, educational policies and in planning fauna conservation plans which should incorporate the most diverse audiences, and not only encompass charismatic species but extend to animals that arouse great aversion from the part of people.

Most infectious diseases affecting humans are zoonotic in origin, with mammals serving as the main reservoirs. Frequent interactions between humans and animals, especially in the context of their use for food, medicine, and other purposes, pose significant public health risks, as recently demonstrated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In traditional medicine, many species—some of which are also used as food—are valued for their therapeutic versatility, that is, the diversity of medicinal uses attributed to each species. This study investigates the role of zoonotic potential in the selection of mammals used in traditional medicine at a global scale. We compiled data on 411 wild mammal species across 17 orders, identifying 5.146 associated pathogens, of which 2.778 (53.9%) also infect humans. Most diseases transmitted by these species are caused by viruses (33.4%), bacteria (23.3%), and helminths (22.3%). These mammals are used to treat at least 500 diseases or symptoms, and 4.3% of the species show high therapeutic versatility (RI > 1). Our results indicate that species selection is shaped by both biological and cultural factors, with zoonotic potential being the most influential: species with a higher risk of disease transmission tend to be less used. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating zoonotic risk into research and policies regarding the medicinal use of wildlife.