Thread: Pokemon Scientific Names

I know Pokemon have a "Species" name from the Pokedex (e.g. Pikachu: Electric Mouse Pokemon), but don't you think there should be Latin-sounding, scientific names for Pokemon along with common names, just like how in real life, animals have a common name and a scientific name? It might be a stupid idea, but I saw a thread with the phylogenetics of Pokemon, and some branches of some of it seems bizarre. But if we classified Pokemon using the KPCOFGS model, we should have a much more accurate representation. Any thoughts on this? And any suggestions on some Pokemon's scientific names?



Example:

Lugia:

D-Eukaryota

K-Pokemon

P-Chordata

C-Aves

O-Avaltum

F-Customae/r

G-Dracaven

S-D. Argentum

I've thought of this before but not "Latin" names per say
and the KPCOFGS system might not fit with Pokemon
(I don't agree with the Current Naming system anyway.)
I think we don't enough about Pokemon Research to establish a accurate system,
But we could probably put something together.

Few thoughts:
One reason we can't use the our system is because about 2/3 of all Pokemon do not share the same Origin as one another
Or even enough similarities in the ways that such names would count.
Artificial constructs, Extraterrestrial/Inter-dimensionals, and Lifeforms resulting from abiogenesis
are only a few of the many ways Pokemon have and/or could arise, rendering much of the KPCOFGS system Moot.
So, how a Pokemon is created/born would have to be reflected.

And then, the Names would be based on the Pokemon's Typing,
It's evolutionary stage (this being it's Metamorphic Stage),
where it would fall in the overall Evolutionary chains assuming that Present day Pokemon actually originated from Previous Forms of Pokemon,
And Possibly even confirming Breeding connections (Egg groups) outside of game canon.

I think a phylogenetic tree would probably be easier to construct first,
and then names would be derived from that.

I think it's an interesting idea. I always considered the whole "species" part of Pokemon info a...I suppose nickname would be the right word, rather than something seriously used in scientific study and classification. I mean, every Pokemon is it's own species, that much seems obvious. Although from what I have been told, the Electric Tales of Pikachu manga stated in exposition that all Pokemon are part of a single species, which is rather silly. Then again, this same manga also had Ash exclaim that Pikachu's hit points were almost zero, and that "every kid that turns ten gets a Pokemon liscense, and all Pokemon trainers are exempt from school". Linkara pointed out that if that was the case, why even have school?

Anyway, I think that if you wanted to create a classification system for Pokemon like the one we use in the real world, I would give Pokemon their own kingdom. That's high enough in the classification system to account for all the many differences seen by Pokemon. How the typing system would fit into that, I have no idea. Typing as used by Pokemon doesn't really work for real world animals. Like, you can have a Pokemon with two types, but at the same time you can't have a creature that is part reptile and part mammal, you know what I mean? The fox may be called the "cat-like canine" for the large number of cat traits it possesses, but it still must have enough dog traits to be placed in the dog family rather than the cat family.

On the other hand, maybe you could use the species titles for scientific names. But that would first require a list of all the species names, and which Pokemon share species names (since I know there are some, even if I can't think of them right off the bat).

You forgot Domain and sub Phylum (though the clear mammalia classification is still there so you can assume sP Vertebrata). I also feel compelled to point out that every family ends in the letters 'ae.' And Aves is an order under Class Mammalia.

But anyways, I don't think that scientific classification suits Pokemon at all. The obvious first reason is that Pokemon, like all anime, defies 99% of scientific law. And then there's the part of me that loves Pokemon because it's irrational and thus is a good escape from the real world. Part of the scientific naming factor would derive from the irrationality of pokemon. Sure, some parts of the classification would be simple; cell count and structure as well as vertebrae are clear cut. (I'll choose not to go in the lack of cell structure data available.) But a lot of classification is based on reproduction, so what do you do with all the legendaries? And let's face it; there are bug types in pokemon that don't have the mandatory pair of wings, antennae, three-segmented body, and three pairs of legs. Now, if you're suggesting a complete wipe of standard taxonomy, it's theoretically possible to make a classification system for pokemon. Well, if you had enough information which we obviously don't.

Oddish has a scientific name "Oddium Wanderus". How does this name derived?

If known, we can then tried to name other Pokemon as well.

Professor Instrutilus' Study of Pokémon

Already been doing this, though rarely as I've been busy. I've got:
PON #025 - Pikachu (Desumomuris exemplar)
PON #132 – Ditto (Effingocreatura ignotus)
PON #143 – Snorlax (Amplusursus negotium)
PBN #003 – Sceptile (Gramensauros extraxi)
PJN #065 – Scraggy (Tergumlacerta brevis)

And that's just the articled ones.

Originally Posted by LadyScathach

You forgot Domain and sub Phylum (though the clear mammalia classification is still there so you can assume sP Vertebrata). I also feel compelled to point out that every family ends in the letters 'ae.' And Aves is an order under Class Mammalia.

But anyways, I don't think that scientific classification suits Pokemon at all. The obvious first reason is that Pokemon, like all anime, defies 99% of scientific law. And then there's the part of me that loves Pokemon because it's irrational and thus is a good escape from the real world. Part of the scientific naming factor would derive from the irrationality of pokemon.

Wouldn't the word be "detract" from the irrationality of Pokemon?

Originally Posted by LadyScathach

Sure, some parts of the classification would be simple; cell count and structure as well as vertebrae are clear cut. (I'll choose not to go in the lack of cell structure data available.) But a lot of classification is based on reproduction, so what do you do with all the legendaries? And let's face it; there are bug types in pokemon that don't have the mandatory pair of wings, antennae, three-segmented body, and three pairs of legs. Now, if you're suggesting a complete wipe of standard taxonomy, it's theoretically possible to make a classification system for pokemon. Well, if you had enough information which we obviously don't.

The legendaries situation is a good point. But I am of the opinion that SOME legendaries do breed, at least where stories are concerned and not the game. It works in the games for Legendaries not to breed because their status as "legendary" usually correlates to extreme power, so you don't want people to be able to have a lot of those types of creatures, otherwise things would be decidedly unfair. But in the anime, and in story, there seems to be a distinction within the legendaries themselves. Some are "lesser-legendaries", to coin a term, while others are "greater-legendaries".

Take the birds. We've seen Lugia breed. And what about Articuno? There was one in the Orange Islands in movie 2, but there was also one that frequented mountains in Johto, and the one that Noland had. That cannot be the same one in all three instances. The Articuno in the movie seemed like it made a permanent home for itself, so I doubt it makes a frequent (and I am sure rather long) trip back and forth. And the second movie plot...just imagine this:

Lawrence: Hmm...Articuno doesn't seem to be responding. It's been an hour. What's going on here?

*Goes down to island and finds note*

Lawrence: What's this? "Dear villains and/or any visitors. Decided to go visit Johto for a while. Be back in three months. Signed: Articuno."

Lawrence: Three months!? What am I supposed to do for three months?

Other legendaries like the Lake Guardians represent universal constants, so it would be okay if they didn't breed, and there was only one of them. And as far as fitting them into classification, well, they wouldn't fit. Their status would mean that they couldn't really be placed into the current system because so little is known of them, or even if they exist.

And I agree that a Pokemon classification system would have to start from scratch. Ours works for real animals and plants, but Pokemon are too different to fit into that system. We can take the essence of the system, and take ideas from it, but the actual structure and breakdown of the system would have to be unique if it were to work best.

@reynard; Oops. Chances are I leave out/misspell/insert an extra word in every post I make.

Yeah, I agree with the classification needing to based off of anime canon. I know I've already advocated that scientific laws must be separated from pokemon, but reproduction is one of the characteristics of life. Though I guess we could always redefine the characteristics of life while constructing a pokemon biological classification system.

Originally Posted by LadyScathach

@reynard; Oops. Chances are I leave out/misspell/insert an extra word in every post I make.

Yeah, I agree with the classification needing to based off of anime canon. I know I've already advocated that scientific laws must be separated from pokemon, but reproduction is one of the characteristics of life. Though I guess we could always redefine the characteristics of life while constructing a pokemon biological classification system.

No, I don't think we should re-classify life. That's so basic to the laws of biology, and it would potentially give us way too much work trying to account for changes, if we want to be comprehensive. Or something like that.

First of all, if you want to do something like this, you have to establish which canon you are primarily working with, and remember to look at other sources for ideas. You have to remember to translate game logic to story logic. I keep mentioning that in my world building posts because I am simply a fan of the anime and not the games, and in playing with story ideas, I'm constantly working with it.

Pokemon are, in story, animals, creatures of flesh and blood like any other. They are simply more fantastic and possess the equivalent of superpowers. So willing suspension of disbelief needs to be applied in some places. But at the same time, the injection of real world science into the story gives a sense of strength to what is fantasy, like how a little bit of truth in a lie makes it easier to believe. For example, electric eels do hold and release electricity. So do electric types. Electric type Pokemon just release massive amounts of it, enough to act as batteries. That level of power is impossible in the real world, but willing suspension allows for the exaggeration.

In the same sense, we can accept the existence of Pokemon like Magnemite or Onix. They are simply forms of inorganic, non-carbon based life. Despite what the game says, they can probably breed like the rest of Pokemon. Science fiction has certainly used the idea before. The only real Pokemon that defies the definition of "life" is Deoxys. But that's because Deoxys is a virus Pokemon, and viruses are not considered a form of life because they need a member of another species to reproduce, though that is being debated.

Now I am just reminded of the Ology series. Have you heard of these books? They are wonderful books written for a younger audience, but are surprisingly detailed. Each one has a narrative it wants to tell on a particular subject. For example, their first book, Egyptology, was designed to look like the journal of a woman a part of a lost expedition to find the Tomb of Osiris. And throughout the pages, it taught you things about Egypt. The third book in the series was called Dragonology, and is one of the most popular. It is written by the fictional Dr. Ernest Drake, and it's about a scientific study of dragons. It takes various dragon lore and weaves it into a pseudo scientific study complete with diagrams, behavior, etc. It's really nice. And all throughout it, dragons maintain their fantastic nature. Dragons are one of the most incredible and oldest of mythical beasts. Murals of dragon-like creatures have been found on the walls of Mesopotamian cities, the cradle of civilization. If I may be poetic, dragons have walked beside us in our stories and dreams since the dawn of time, since the origins of myth itself, as our fears and our companions. So they hold a special place to us. The book is so popular it spawned a board game (which I have but have never played because I don't have anyone to play with. :( )

A related book by the same fake author is Monsterology, which take the same scientific look at all other Monsters. Lately there has been Alienology and Vampireology. My point in all that is that I think it is possible to weave a scientific study of Pokemon together and still keep them as fantastic as they are, if you know where to give and take with willing suspension and fantastic science.

And now, I'm going to go find my copy of Monsterology and read it for inspiration.

How do you apply taxonomy to Pokemon when the fundamental unit (the species) has no clear definition? Reproductive barriers which constitute both the prevailing basis for the species concept and a key mechanism by which species diverge in the first place are extremely fuzzy in Pokemon. How do you define a species when each individual is capable of having viable offspring with hundreds of other radically different Pokemon? Darwinian processes that form the basis for the diversity we see in our own world won't work the same way in Pokemon. While there is evidence that some similar processes shape the way Pokemon have evolved (genes for example are confirmed to exist, but clearly function differently to our own), the mechanisms are unknown and likely to result in a tree of life that is very different to the one we see in our own world.

@reynard; Deoxys is a good point. And viruses are also considered non-living because they don't agree with the current definition of the cell, though that could easily be changed. Sorry, Bio nerd here. But then again, there are classification systems for viruses too, it'd just be separate from all the other pokemon. Or I guess it's possible to extended the Domain to include viruses. It's a technicality, sure, but an easily overlooked one.

You make a good point about the need to adhere to a certain verse of pokemon. I agree that anime would probably be both the best and the easiest, though I've not seen much evidence in the anime to suggest the non-lengendary, genderless pokemon can reproduce. The games, of course, will allow genderless pokemon to breed, though not Nidoqueen and Nidorina (what the hell, Game Freak?). But then again, pokemon rarely goes into enough depth with it's minor characters in anything, so drawing from the other verses is pretty common. Well, unless your writing about a character similar to Lance in that he/she has multiple personas (and hair colors lol).

As for the fictional ology series, I'm not familiar with them though I have seen some systematic classification for fictional creatures here and there. They sound very interesting though; especially the classification ones. When I was still an active participant in the Twilight fandom (don't shoot me, anyone), I came across a scientific approach the Vampirism that I found particularly interesting. Dragons (and I suppose aliens too) would be particularly interesting because of the many differences based on both time period and culture. Affinities, physical characteristics, hmm...

ETA:

How do you apply taxonomy to Pokemon when the fundamental unit (the species) has no clear definition? Reproductive barriers which constitute both the prevailing basis for the species concept and a key mechanism by which species diverge in the first place are extremely fuzzy in Pokemon. How do you define a species when each individual is capable of having viable offspring with hundreds of other radically different Pokemon? Darwinian processes that form the basis for the diversity we see in our own world won't work the same way in Pokemon. While there is evidence that some similar processes shape the way Pokemon have evolved (genes for example are confirmed to exist, but clearly function differently to our own), the mechanisms are unknown and likely to result in a tree of life that is very different to the one we see in our own world.

Good point. By the way pokemon defines species it would be simplest to call each different pokemon it's own species, but the biological definition would probably be, over the long haul, the easier way to classify. Of course, since egg groups are broad, the species would also be incredibly broad. Evolution of a species would probably have to be ruled out because the only (easy) ways to explain how pokemon genetics work would be sex-linked inheritance. If you choose to use sex-linked inheritance, a dilemma similar to the one about the y chromosome crops up; there would only be one set of data, so the chromosome would have nothing to exchange DNA with. Mutations could account for some variation, but then there is still only one chromosome; no way to pull non-corrupt data if the mutation proves fatal. But then again, survival of the fittest and the mutations die off... On second thought, that might work. Dominate alleles is another somewhat plausible theory, but not really. The chances of all the female's data always overriding the males is minuscule. Perhaps dominant chromosomes? Or I suppose it's possible to propose a system of pokemon genetics that is unique from the ones in the real world.

Magikarp - Piscis patheticus

Wow! When I saw this thread, I didn't expected it to be a serious thread :O
I kinda blended all what I know about taxonomy, and created this. I made up everything.
Here's my example:
Kingdom: Pocemona
Phylum: Plebeia
Class: Terranea
Order: Rodentia
Family: Electidentia
Sub-Family: Pichurigia
Genus: Pichu
Subgenus: Pichu
Species: P. maxilla

As you can note, that's Pichu's classification. And Pikachu and Raichu's too. I considered evolutionary families as being part of the same single species. Now, the genus doesn't really have to be the baby Pokémon's name, but in this case it fitted in. I'll explain it all:
I called the kingdom "Pocemona" so it sounded Latin and scientific :D The phylum is called "Plebeia", as I divided between legendary and non-legendary Pokémon. To do the classes, I divided between earth (Pokémon that can live on land; ie. Mankey, Swampert) and aquatic Pokémon (Pokémon that need to live in water; ie. Magikarp, Goldeen). Then, the order is "Rodentia" just as in real life, as there I grouped most rodent-like Pokémon, from Rattata to Minccino. Electidentia is a family of electric rodent-like Pokémon, which include Minun and Plusle (which I consider as a same species BTW), Pachirisu, Emolga, and of course, the Pichu evolutionary family. Then I put Pachirisu, Emolga and the Pichu family in the same family, which I called Pichurigia (I just scrambled up the Pokémons' names :P), and then did the sub family, where we only find Pichu and its evolutions. Then, Pichu and its evolutions occupy the species slot.

I think it'll be a good idea is we all try to avoid using Latin or Latin-"sounding" names just for the sake of "sounding" Scientific,
as the reasons for using Latin to begin with is rooted in our World and completely meaningless to the Pokemon Universe.
Plus, it just sounds Pretentious.

Originally Posted by LadyScathach

@reynard; Deoxys is a good point. And viruses are also considered non-living because they don't agree with the current definition of the cell, though that could easily be changed. Sorry, Bio nerd here. But then again, there are classification systems for viruses too, it'd just be separate from all the other pokemon. Or I guess it's possible to extended the Domain to include viruses. It's a technicality, sure, but an easily overlooked one.

You make a good point about the need to adhere to a certain verse of pokemon. I agree that anime would probably be both the best and the easiest, though I've not seen much evidence in the anime to suggest the non-lengendary, genderless pokemon can reproduce. The games, of course, will allow genderless pokemon to breed, though not Nidoqueen and Nidorina (what the hell, Game Freak?). But then again, pokemon rarely goes into enough depth with it's minor characters in anything, so drawing from the other verses is pretty common. Well, unless your writing about a character similar to Lance in that he/she has multiple personas (and hair colors lol).

As for the fictional ology series, I'm not familiar with them though I have seen some systematic classification for fictional creatures here and there. They sound very interesting though; especially the classification ones. When I was still an active participant in the Twilight fandom (don't shoot me, anyone), I came across a scientific approach the Vampirism that I found particularly interesting. Dragons (and I suppose aliens too) would be particularly interesting because of the many differences based on both time period and culture. Affinities, physical characteristics, hmm...

ETA:

How do you apply taxonomy to Pokemon when the fundamental unit (the species) has no clear definition? Reproductive barriers which constitute both the prevailing basis for the species concept and a key mechanism by which species diverge in the first place are extremely fuzzy in Pokemon. How do you define a species when each individual is capable of having viable offspring with hundreds of other radically different Pokemon? Darwinian processes that form the basis for the diversity we see in our own world won't work the same way in Pokemon. While there is evidence that some similar processes shape the way Pokemon have evolved (genes for example are confirmed to exist, but clearly function differently to our own), the mechanisms are unknown and likely to result in a tree of life that is very different to the one we see in our own world.

Good point. By the way pokemon defines species it would be simplest to call each different pokemon it's own species, but the biological definition would probably be, over the long haul, the easier way to classify. Of course, since egg groups are broad, the species would also be incredibly broad. Evolution of a species would probably have to be ruled out because the only (easy) ways to explain how pokemon genetics work would be sex-linked inheritance. If you choose to use sex-linked inheritance, a dilemma similar to the one about the y chromosome crops up; there would only be one set of data, so the chromosome would have nothing to exchange DNA with. Mutations could account for some variation, but then there is still only one chromosome; no way to pull non-corrupt data if the mutation proves fatal. But then again, survival of the fittest and the mutations die off... On second thought, that might work. Dominate alleles is another somewhat plausible theory, but not really. The chances of all the female's data always overriding the males is minuscule. Perhaps dominant chromosomes? Or I suppose it's possible to propose a system of pokemon genetics that is unique from the ones in the real world.

I presume most of the inorganics can reproduce because other, odder Pokemon are allowed to have genders and reproduce amongst themselves (Ghastly for example, which is a ball of gas with eyes and a mouth, and yet it can somehow have genders and lay an egg...with the likes of Muk...someone get me bleach for my brain so I can erase that image please). Now there could be exceptions to that, like maybe Porygon or the lesser Regis. The lesser Regis may not "breed" necessarily. They are modeled off of golems, and golems aren't so much born as they are built.

And don't worry about once being interested in Twilight. It's fine with me. I never was interested in it myself. Actually I didn't like it at all. But I did try to write an anti-fic once and in so doing I created a more scientific origin theory for the so called "vampires". Would you like me to PM it to you? It wouldn't be much trouble for me. Also, since you are a self-proclaimed bio-nerd, could I run something by you related to Pokemon genetics in a PM too?

I also agree about the species thing. Like I mentioned before, the manga "The Electric Tales of Pikachu" tried to say that all Pokemon were one species, but that is too silly given that Pokemon vary so much. So it is better off having the definition of "Pokemon" be connected to the equivalent of a Kingdom in a classification system. It would be so high up that it could encompass the many varieties of creatures, in the same way that the Animal Kingdom encompasses birds, mammals, insects, arachnids, reptiles, fish, so on and so fourth.