Also, seeing that evolution is pretty much growing up, the different stages of the same line would have the exact same name, not a different specific one, so Gloom/Vileplume/Bellossom are O.wanderus, and Kabuto is K.maximus.
Wouldn't work as well, because the differences between members of the same evolutive branch are too strong to name them the same when scientific study is a purpose. The main problem is, as Chronix (I believe) mentioned some tens of pages ago, that you are assuming that taxonomy studies advanced the same way in their world as ours; however, the key difference that when a Pokémon evolves its structure can vary completely
(Bronzor, Clamperl, to mention some examples) means that while in our world we classify down to the species as the item of "least significant difference", in their world each evolutive stage is the item of "least significant difference" as well. That's why, I'd guess, we went with "branchux stageis
" naming schema instead. So I'd stay with that scheme for binomial names; it just doesn't strike me that their scientists would rationally choose a schema like ours.
Also, I'd be interested in knowing how different species would be classified: Would dragons be an unique group, or just different reptiles: Dratini is a sea snake, Bagon is a monitor, Larvitar is an iguana and Charmander is a lizard.
Not sure what to answer here, but if it serves some, I'd say try not to think of say, Garchomp as a gliding shark or a sharklike reptile. I'd think of it as a Sharpedo-like Gligar or a bipedal Sharpedo. Or something like that. And come with the definition of a species from that
. Then again, I'm not exactly sure how much do our animals exists in the Pokéverse, nor whether they are the same as we call them ours (ie.. is our cat their cat? Their cat would have to be pretty evolved
with respect to ours if it has to compete in an environment with flamethrowering Persians).
I'm digressing again... better not listen to me but wait for someone more knowledgeable in the matter.
However, for a last pointer...
Last thing: Would using already existing genus be an option? I wouldn't call Ursaring anything but Ursus, but it may seem odd to other people...
I don't see why anyone would have problem like that. Actually, from a human-perspective hollistic vision, it would be expected
that whatever the root "ursus" comes from, if we picked it for bears, others would pick it up for bear-like creatures (even if they don't know what a bear is) in their worlds as well.