Shouldn't that be a baby form of Kangaskhan? Kangaskhan looks the same as soon as it hatches, indicates to me that it is a different species entirely. What are your thoughts?
Printable View
Shouldn't that be a baby form of Kangaskhan? Kangaskhan looks the same as soon as it hatches, indicates to me that it is a different species entirely. What are your thoughts?
No, the baby Kangakhan is the same species as the larger Kangaskhan.
This has been discussed before.
Why does a newly hatched one have a baby in it?Quote:
Originally Posted by coolcatkim22
Because in Gen I, eggs didn't exist, and in later gens they didn't feel like giving kangaskhan a pre-evo.
Because breeding hadn't been created when Pokemon was first made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satoshi182
Becouse they only have 1 sprite, they don't have different sprites for pokemon when they first hatch, and nintendo dosnt see the reason to include such a thing, I think a pre-evo would be nice but Nintendo has astablished that they are the same species, I think maybe a timer till theQuote:
Originally Posted by Satoshi182
Kangaskhan grows up and then it's child apeares over time would be nice, or maybe a child apeares after you first breed it, but Nintendo probably wont bother.
Surely you know the Cubone theory? Even if it's wrong, it's better than any alternative given to us by GameFreak.
I like that theory, it makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalde
It was known that Pokemon lay eggs though, Togepi was introduced in gen 1. That Cubone theory is ludacris.
I think the Cubone theory makes plenty of sense, the Marowak can't die everyime it has a child, it makes no sense for a breeding population, therefore Cubone and Marowak must have a alternate species, if not Kangaskhan, something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satoshi182
With that logic, A Pichu could evolve into an Onix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Charizard
...What?...I'm sorry, what? no thats not logic, Pichu has a line that is fine, nothing about it dosnt make sense like the Cubone line, but Cubones is said to where the skull of it's dead mother, this can't be right, a mother can't die for every new ofspring, the species would go extinct faster then Sonic eats a chilidog in those old Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satoshi182
Surely there is such a thing as a Cubone who didnt lose it's mother, that dosnt where it's mothers skull, the only other explenation I can think of is that the pokedex is wrong and that Cubones dont all lose there mothers and that they use any skull, and the only reason that all the skulls look the same is becouse every pokemon only gets like one sprite and nintendo wont bother.
Kangaskhan are hatched with babies because when they hatched they make a baby as well probably...
I still say it is becouse of pokemon only having like one sprite and that in reality thay don't have babies when they hatch.Quote:
Originally Posted by G€no$e¢t
My Arceus, it's a paradox!