Thanks, kdt26417. The differences in definition are interesting.
I suppose that one of my reasons for asking is that so often I think we (at least in Western society) are encouraged to see romantic and familial love as the only kinds that count. And for most of us, as we get older, familial love is meant to include our own children.
I think that devalues the love that people have for friends and pets. And the love that their friends and pets return.
These tend to be seen as lesser types of love and so often we are encouraged to move away from them and toward romantic love and having our own children (or at least that was my experience of spending a long period during my child bearing years free from any romantic entanglements).
My opinion is that all sorts of love are to be valued and I think I would lean toward an inclusive definition of polyamoury. I have an enormous amount of enthusiasm for recognising and valuing all loving relationships - and recognising just how much love there is around us. I think that's what polyamoury means to me. Inclusive, abundant love.
For me - not monogamous I think is how I would describe not being monogamous. Maybe?