As a field, medical anthropology has contributed robust critiques of biomedical science as well as thoughtful explorations of embodiment at multiple scales (Lock 1993; Nguyen and Peschard 2004; Inhorn 2007; Brotherton and Nguyen 2013). Medical anthropology has certainly sought to raise questions about environmental health, yet contributors have not consistently incorporated anthropological explorations of science, technology, or embodiment (Petryna 2013 ), nor anthropological engagements with the realities of Multispecies existence (Mullin 2002; Lestel 2006; Kohn 2007; Kirksey and Helmreich 2010; Blue and Rock 2011; Descola 2013 ). Meanwhile, anthropological theories of space have been advanced ( e.g., Jiminez 2003; Low 2009; Ingold 2012), yet thus far, the discipline of geography ( e.g., Braun 2005; Hinchliffe and Whatmore 2006; Buller 2014) appears to have received and incorporated this potential line of inquiry more readily than has the field of medical anthropology. In sum, other disciplines and other fields within anthropology are actively engaging with the embodiment and emplacement of morethan-human collectives to an extent that medical anthropology has not. It is possible that foundational terminology in medical anthropology could, in fact, present a discursive boundary to active and reflexive engagement with environmental health – for example, through classifying studies as being of illness, of sickness, or in medicine (Young 1982).