TBFL said: "How do you know he's not a humanoid lion from the front? lol All of the characters/costumes in that shot are just slightly different from the 1939 version that everyone knows. You recognise them, but they're not the same. Basically they were not paying for licence to be able to copy the costumes. From the back, Bert Lahr's costume was the most realistic, even using real lion hair in it. To make it different for the film, they couldn't go backwards, as it were, and make it look like a costume, the internet would be in uproar, so they made it look more realistic, as that's what it's meant to be. Although they did licence one part of a costume... ;)"
By humanoid, I meant standing on two legs, human proportions, etc. As you said, it’s not the look of a human in a costume, it is a realistic-looking (presumably CGI) lion. So the assumption is that, if they’re consistent with the animals, Dillamond would be the same.