Total posts: [7,652] 1 ... 127 128 129 130 131 133 134 135 136 137 ... 307
The PokÚdex - Extended Fanon Edition:
Guess Who...?The problem with that sort of behavior is that if you're not an apex predator, it gets you killed very quickly (which considering some of the other fauna of Sinnoh, as well as RL predators of poisonous frogs, I sincerely doubt describes Croagunk or Toxicroak accurately). Also, IIRC, frogs weren't very good at tearing apart food into smaller morsels with their teeth. (Whatever goes down their gullet successfully is usually mostly intact).
Hard Boiled Detective Since 1985
Then, what are humans, then? Homo neonatalis, H. ludicus, H. pubescent, H. sapiens and H. senectus?
Merry Christmas!^ Everyone else but you has agreed that this is the best way to categorize Pokemon evolution. Do you want us to go back over every article we've written and think up new scientific names for them?
It'd make far more sense if a sole name was agreed upon for each line. Otherwise, you'd run into that problem with anybody who takes taxonomy seriously. A trinomial name works far better, specially when you get to deal with the extremelly similar Pokemon; you'd want to make sure that Vulpix is closer to Ninetales that to Zorua, but, at the same time, that all 3 of them are closer to each other that to Growlithe. Trinomial names work better; close Pokemon share only the first one (genus), families have the same second as well (species), but different stages also differ in their third name (subspecific/morph/whatever).
edited 17th Feb '11 2:31:24 PM by Eriorguez
The Republic LivesThis is pokemon. We have creatures who literally change body structure and composition without anything in between. I think taxonomy takes a flying leap into a spike pit in this case.
Guess Who...?Solution: Pokemon taxonomy incorporates a bizarre form of nominate subspecies on a regular basis.
edited 17th Feb '11 2:35:10 PM by TracerBullet
Hard Boiled Detective Since 1985
I personally see the dog that spits fire as more reasonable as changing species as you grow up, as that is impossible by definition. Either you do taxonomy right, or you don't do it. Because Taxonomic Term Confusion is not to be enforced. Also see the edit of my previous post.
I hide the eye for a reason.@Erio YOU CONFUSE ME SO. @Sullen I highly doubt it'll do anything, so far the only meaningful stuff that's been added is Legendary stuff for Palkia (TOESDONOTWANTTOSTEPONTHEM), Victini (who pretty much was the bomb that set off Hiroshima), and a bit for Missingno.
Merry Christmas!In the actual Pokedex, each evolution is defined as its own species. I'm really sick of arguing about this, and I'm sorry I suggested the concept of scientific names for this project.
edited 17th Feb '11 2:34:59 PM by Locoman
I hide the eye for a reason.Scientific Names I always tried to avoid. I never cared about taxonomy, so I thought it was okay to just ignore them and not include them into my articles.
insert title here
In the actual Pokedex, each evolution is defined as it's own species.seeing as the given species name is always something like "the [adjective/noun] pokemon", Imma bet that their "species" is not the same as our "species" kinda like the deal with "evolution".
edited 17th Feb '11 2:38:01 PM by Blissey1
Whisperer in DarknessErioguez, we have already made our choices concerning the implementation of scientific names, and we are not going to change it now; badgering us repeatedly on the subject is not going to change our minds. Drop. The. Subject.
Evolutionary stages are treated as distinct, not considered species. Also, as many things in the actual games are disregarded here in an attempt to do realistic things, why not correct one of the things that is done the poorliest way in the games? Also, it is kinda easy: Say, Vulpix is Vulpes polyurus, Ninetales is V. nonaurus, Zorua is V. aparentus, and Zoroark is V. major. Seeing the scientific name alone wouldn't give you a clue about which ones make a natural family, don't you? Well, say that now Vulpix is V. polyurus hexaurus, Ninetales is V. polyurus nonaurus, Zorua is V. aparentus minor and Zoroark is V. aparentus major. Far easier to get, right? Oh, and, before going and making each family have just its own generic name to avoid confusion, remember that this allows us to establish close relatives, and that cats and dogs would get messy FAST. Sullen Frog, I'd appreciate you could spell my username right if you are going to get serious and call me out for pointing out a mistake you keep feeding. Right now I am seeing more of a 2 versus 2 debate.
edited 17th Feb '11 2:47:14 PM by Eriorguez
Merry Christmas!I'm still writing the article for Koga. I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to put in the article besides his biography, any suggestions?
Perfectioning the technique of Toxic? Shift from pure Poison types to a Bug-centric strategy? Family life?
I hide the eye for a reason.Please. Shut up. I don't care. This is unnecessary.
Merry Christmas!At any rate, almost everyone has agreed that this is the best way to categorize Pokemon evolution. If you don't agree with it, than don't scientifically label the Pokemon you write articles about. /discussion.
edited 17th Feb '11 3:13:09 PM by Locoman
Calm down, researchers. It seems simple to resolve this. Go ahead with trinomial names; the existing binomial names and future should just be assumed to be species/bodyplan as opposed to genus/species. Eriorguez or any other interested parties can propose genus names to tie things together.
edited 17th Feb '11 3:24:38 PM by Tangent128
Get out of my Difference Engine, Rotom!
I hide the eye for a reason.You know what? Forget it. I'm just going to be here and scribble all over the Dialga Article w/ Digital Markers.
Was trinomial nomenclature even mentioned back then? Does it have anything that makes it worse that binomial nomenclature apart of the fact that it did not get a mention beforehand? I'll drop the subject when I get a rational answer, and you consider that there may be better options that the ones agreed upon. By the way, I don't even belive in traditional taxonomy. It is just that an individual changing cathegory when growing up, while, to put it into perspective, nowadays we are as much of a fish as a sardine, well, hurts my inner biologist. It'd help if I got an answer that it wasn't a hostile "agreed upon, won't change". That just incites me to be less prone to see it as reasonable. And also makes me less prone to be reasonable, the hotheadness is not quite called for.
edited 17th Feb '11 3:32:54 PM by Eriorguez
insert title herewell, how bout this. Our taxonomical system was developed to classify creatures as they exists IRL. Pokemon, while sharing some similarities, are most decidedly different from creatures in IRL. So wouldn't humans in the pokeverse have developed a different taxonomical system for them?
edited 17th Feb '11 3:36:37 PM by Blissey1
If they did, that's it. Because we don't even have an idea of where humans come from in this universe. And there is also the fact that Popcultural Osmosis makes everybody think that slight differences and a different name makes a species. Then we have the fact that, even agreeing upon that humans are a sole species while Pokemon families have different species, one can find far more diversity between humans that between, say, Clefairy and Clefable.
Merry Christmas!Just so people know, I'm also drafting up the Snivy line right now. I'll post it on March 14th.
Whisperer in DarknessGood for you, Crow; our first catch of the new generation.
Merry Christmas!What I have so far states that they're distant peripheral cousins of the Treecko line, and that their evolution is a textbook case of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.