Generalizing Animal Behavior to Humans is a massively complicated matter because if we're taking a level of human ideals, emotions, morals, diagnosises, etc. its far too complicated, because if you're looking at experiments on animals in relation to behaviour, captive results will likely be different to wild results, etc. And as I said with the paper, there's aspects where people could reach to say that these are neurodivergent behaviours; when in actuality, its a similar reaction to if you were confined and getting frustrated, or you're anxious about something (pacing is a key example because its one everyone knows)
You're going to have to explain what you mean on "the classification of "animal" itself is misleading :
Imagine if we had a classification of all animals that excludes horses or hyenas specifically ..." this part; mainly because its thrown me (I'm working on a uni assignment at the same time, so split between two things).
To be honest, from a personal perspective, I don't think we should really compare humans to animals, placing any human based morals, ethics, secondary emotions, etc. as much; when its in relation to experiments, welfare of captive species, protection of species etc. due to our active input on it, yes we need to be involved and make sure that we are putting an aspect in place (Just putting that there in case someone tries to twist what was said).
Because while there are similarities, the amount of differences are huge; plus the more we do that, the more people can hold onto certain key areas which can lead to viewpoints that can be damaging.