Pokemon Scientific Names - Page 2

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Pokemon Scientific Names

  1. #16
    Silver Strategician LadyScathach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA (GMT -5)
    Posts
    279
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    @reynard; Sure, send it.

  2. #17
    The leaf lives on... JustAnotherLeafeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Sometimes, I don't even know.
    Posts
    368
    Blog Entries
    29

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    An interesting proposition, but it would be quite the endeavor to accomplish. The problem is that we would have to somehow organize all the pokemon. The KPCOFGS isn't that practical in this situation, since it seems much too extensive and many of the pokemon share a similar origin. It would also raise questions about pokemon like Deoxys and Rotom; Deoxys being a virus and Rotom being essentially a living ball of plasma. There are just too many differences in too few pokemon. I mean, the KPCOFGS system is designed for something bigger than just 600+ subjects. So perhaps a new system should be made up so there aren't as many variables or loners, as that kind of annoys me.

    I don't know. Just typing what I think.
    Once upon a time there was a leafeon. There wasn't anything special about him. He was just a regular leafeon.
    But there's a story behind the leafeon.



    Credit where credit is due.
    Oh look. A deviantART.

  3. #18
    Registered User reynard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    155
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    Quote Originally Posted by JustAnotherLeafeon View Post
    An interesting proposition, but it would be quite the endeavor to accomplish. The problem is that we would have to somehow organize all the pokemon. The KPCOFGS isn't that practical in this situation, since it seems much too extensive and many of the pokemon share a similar origin. It would also raise questions about pokemon like Deoxys and Rotom; Deoxys being a virus and Rotom being essentially a living ball of plasma. There are just too many differences in too few pokemon. I mean, the KPCOFGS system is designed for something bigger than just 600+ subjects. So perhaps a new system should be made up so there aren't as many variables or loners, as that kind of annoys me.

    I don't know. Just typing what I think.
    It's seems rather unanimous that a new classification system would be needed. The real one just doesn't fit, and would be the kind of system that scientists on Poke-Earth would create to organize their animals. I mean the essence of it is okay, but not necessarily the fine details.

    The question remains how to break them down. Pokemon type would very likely be part of the classification system, but then what do you do about secondary types? And what about Pokemon with physical similarities that aren't part of an evolutionary line? Classifications help show how species are related. What I mean is, take a look at Pikachu and Parchirisu. Both are electric types, and while one is built like a mouse and the other a squirrel, they both have the same electricity-sack storage adaptation. So are they related? How so? Or what about Plusle and Minun. They seem physically similar to Pikachu. Are they related? How so?

    Or what about other Pokemon based on the same type of animal? In a classification system, would all dog-based Pokemon be related? How? How does type fit into it, because type would clearly have to be in the system somewhere. What about all feline based creatures, or horse based, or the fox Pokemon? There's your question.

    Deoxys would probably frustrate Poke-Earth scientists, so it would be fine if it didn't have a proper place in a classification system. As for Rotom, it's a ghost type, so I would think it would be put with the other ghost types, and ghost types themselves would probably prove to be a massive pain in the tail to Poke-Earth scientists.

  4. #19
    The leaf lives on... JustAnotherLeafeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Sometimes, I don't even know.
    Posts
    368
    Blog Entries
    29

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    Quote Originally Posted by reynard View Post
    It's seems rather unanimous that a new classification system would be needed. The real one just doesn't fit, and would be the kind of system that scientists on Poke-Earth would create to organize their animals. I mean the essence of it is okay, but not necessarily the fine details.

    The question remains how to break them down. Pokemon type would very likely be part of the classification system, but then what do you do about secondary types? And what about Pokemon with physical similarities that aren't part of an evolutionary line? Classifications help show how species are related. What I mean is, take a look at Pikachu and Parchirisu. Both are electric types, and while one is built like a mouse and the other a squirrel, they both have the same electricity-sack storage adaptation. So are they related? How so? Or what about Plusle and Minun. They seem physically similar to Pikachu. Are they related? How so?

    Or what about other Pokemon based on the same type of animal? In a classification system, would all dog-based Pokemon be related? How? How does type fit into it, because type would clearly have to be in the system somewhere. What about all feline based creatures, or horse based, or the fox Pokemon? There's your question.

    Deoxys would probably frustrate Poke-Earth scientists, so it would be fine if it didn't have a proper place in a classification system. As for Rotom, it's a ghost type, so I would think it would be put with the other ghost types, and ghost types themselves would probably prove to be a massive pain in the tail to Poke-Earth scientists.
    A valid point, and the same confusion could be said about mew.

    I guess all it comes down to is that we just don't know enough.

    Great. I'm probably going to take the rest of the day thinking about this.
    Once upon a time there was a leafeon. There wasn't anything special about him. He was just a regular leafeon.
    But there's a story behind the leafeon.



    Credit where credit is due.
    Oh look. A deviantART.

  5. #20
    █▄ █▄█ █▇ █ █▀█ KaiserLugia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Whirl Islands
    Posts
    188
    Trophies

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    Quote Originally Posted by szmty View Post
    The phylum is called "Plebeia", as I divided between legendary and non-legendary Pokémon.
    If I really were to get down to do this on paper, I wouldn't just divide all the Pokemon into Legendary and Non-Legendary, some Legendaries do share some characteristics with others. Although I do agree with your classification of Pikachu (although, I would put the Pokemon on the same evolutionary line on the same genus, but not the same spices).

    ---

    And about the Egg Groups about the flying one. I don't care what they say the annoying bats are in, they are mammals and I'm putting that on my chart that I'm too lazy to construct because it would be far too big, although it would be easier to go through the Pokedex from Bulbasaur down. And I'll also put the undiscovered all in a group.
    No.

  6. #21
    Registered User TheCableGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    357

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    Quote Originally Posted by KaiserLugia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by szmty View Post
    The phylum is called "Plebeia", as I divided between legendary and non-legendary Pokémon.
    If I really were to get down to do this on paper, I wouldn't just divide all the Pokemon into Legendary and Non-Legendary, some Legendaries do share some characteristics with others. Although I do agree with your classification of Pikachu (although, I would put the Pokemon on the same evolutionary line on the same genus, but not the same spices).
    Probably be easier to divide "Legendaries" from "Mythical."
    Even though neither are accurate classifications.

    And about the Egg Groups about the flying one. I don't care what they say the annoying bats are in, they are mammals and I'm putting that on my chart that I'm too lazy to construct because it would be far too big, although it would be easier to go through the Pokedex from Bulbasaur down. And I'll also put the undiscovered all in a group.
    It might fit your sensibilities easier but technically, "Mammal" is not a classification of Pokemon,
    as that Classification only applies to our World's Animals and, by definition, Mammals do not lay eggs.

    To properly place the "Bats," We would probably have to ask a difficult question of
    From which group did they originate?

    Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat, for example, are both Poison and Flying.
    So, were they originally Flying Types that took on their Poison typing through adaptation
    Or were they Poison types that Developed the Ability to Fly?

    And then we take Woobat and Swoobat, who are Psychic and Flying,
    The question becomes even more muddled.
    If we were to conclude that both Evolutionary Lines share a close Branch
    We would probably conclude that they both evolved from a Similar Flying type Pokemon
    which simply took differing Evolutionary Paths.

    But this also makes a bold assumption in that they are both closely Evolutionarily Related
    and discounting the possibility that this is merely a case of Convergent evolution
    and that their "Bat-like" appearance is merely Happenstance.

    Of course, Typing and Egg Groups can also be terribly misleading
    because of how a Pokemon's current form can differ dramatically from their Origin.

    Take Gligar, for example.
    It's Current Typing is Ground and Flying yet it's Egg Group is Bug.
    How can this be Explained?

    My Hypothesis:
    Gligar Originated from a Bug-type (Possibly Poison/Bug) But through Hundreds of Thousands (Millions?) of Years
    One of it's typings "Fell off" or became less dominate as it started to take on another typing
    (Ground type and Likely as a result of it adapting to a burrowing/underground nature/habitat)
    until that new Typing became it's new Dominate Typing, resulting is a new dual Type Pokemon, Ground/Poison.

    Then, as the Shifting Genetic make-up of this Evolutionary chain continued to Churn,
    It emerged from it's underground habitat and took to living in higher Elevations (possibly Trees but more likely mountainous regions)
    Adapting to these elevations by developing the ability to glide, eventually taking on the Flying typing.
    By this time, it's original Bug (and possibly Poison) Attributes have all but vanished,
    leaving the Ground/Flying in the Bug egg group that we know today.


    (FYI, This is very Similar to the Debate about how and when exactly did Birds evolve from Reptiles.)
    Last edited by TheCableGuy; 19th May 2013 at 11:34 PM.

  7. #22
    Registered User reynard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    155
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    You are wrong about mammals not laying eggs. There are a few mammals, unique to Australia, that actually still possess the ability to lay eggs from their reptile ancestors. These are the platypus and the echidna.

  8. #23
    Registered User TheCableGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    357

    Default Re: Pokemon Scientific Names

    Quote Originally Posted by reynard View Post
    You are wrong about mammals not laying eggs. There are a few mammals, unique to Australia, that actually still possess the ability to lay eggs from their reptile ancestors. These are the platypus and the echidna.
    Yes, technically they are Mammals but they are monotremes as opposed to therian.
    They are the Exception to the rule.

    Nevertheless, capable of live birth is a Distinguishing Trait of Mammals
    and only one of MANY that Pokemon Violate.

    But that's neither here nor there.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •