  ::::::If “herbivore” really meant “grass eater”, there wouldn't be much dispute. In reality, “herbivore” is commonly used as meaning “exclusive plant eater”, the choice being between being a “carnivore”, an “omnivore” and a “herbivore”. The terms are not to be taken as their etymologies would literally imply. Otherwise “omnivore” would mean “who eats everything”; no one eats everything! (Including nails, rocks, human babies, computers, cardboard and... grass!) ::::::Now concerning the ancestors of present-day humans: that they were, in fact, omnivores (= that they did, in fact, eat both animals and plants) is certainly of interest, but doesn't make present-day humans omnivores. Many present-day humans are omnivores, others are herbivores (in the sense that they only eat plants). ::::::You're right that the statement that humans' teeth and digestive tracts are more similar to herbivores than to carnivores and most omnivores doesn't imply that humans are herbivores; but it is often used as if it did, and it seems to be in that sense that it is used in the paragraph. ::::::Now as I said, disputes about whether we are or not herbivores or whatever are in my mind completely irrelevant, and I am not defending that paragraph. It's just that since that paragraph seems to be a discussion on that issue, a sentence that implicitly presupposes the issue as settled is out of place. ::::::  