Sun & Moon Starter Pokemon
- Thread starter TyXo22m
- Start date
Yes, I forgot that; well, turtwig is, at least; torterra is based on the mythical turtle that holds the world on its back.
To be fair a lot of Pokemon seem like they are not strictly based on any given specific species, but seem to play fast and lose with the idea of animals or animal groups, often mixing elements from many species into a surprisingly harmonic whole
Serperior is based on multiple species of snakes and limbless lizards, such as Oxybelis fulgidus, Ahaetulla nasuta, and Ahaetulla prasina (species of vine snakes), as well as the emerald tree boa, royal python, and possibly Burton's legless lizard. From bpedia
True, but bulbapedia is a fan site at the end of the day. So the info they give about the basis of pokemon's origins can often be speculation. You would have to ask whoever designed Serperior to truly know.
That aside, the only thing is shares with boas and pythons is being a large "snake". While it does appear to be a mix of a legless lizard and a snake. I don't think there is enough there to pick out specific families of snake. For all we know, whoever designed it just though "snake" for the body as opposed to a specif species. But that's just me.
That aside, the only thing is shares with boas and pythons is being a large "snake". While it does appear to be a mix of a legless lizard and a snake. I don't think there is enough there to pick out specific families of snake. For all we know, whoever designed it just though "snake" for the body as opposed to a specif species. But that's just me.
I can see how the exact species would be hard to differentiate. The only person that really knows is who created serperior.
The only reason I bring it up is because I cared for some critters last year which included a burmese python and a columbian boa, and they have pretty specific features. But I do get that pokemon are fantasy creature, or chimera like mixes.
Didn't mean to seem as if I was calling anyone out or anything, I just didn't see the similarities.
Didn't mean to seem as if I was calling anyone out or anything, I just didn't see the similarities.
The only real similarities I see, is Large, Snake-Like.
Turtwig is a Tortoise.
What? I'm just saying that Foxes aren't Dogs and at least Serperior in the Snivy line is an ACTUAL snake.
OK so for fire starter, PLZ be a rabbit!
You said we can't have a "snake" because we already have a "snake". Foxes and dogs are closer related than many snake species are to each other. One being members of the same family (Canidae) the other comprising a whole sub-order (Serpentes).
Also, prove that the designers of Turtwig and Serperior had a tortoise and a snake in mind instead of a turtle and a legless lizard.
And don't say because Seperior has the word "serpent" in it.
Turtwig has the word "turtle" in it, in English AND Japanese. So the attempt to prove a pokemon's inspiration by its name alone is moot.
The point of it all is that dogs and foxes have the same basic body plan and very similar features, just as much as snakes.
It just strenghtens what I said earlier, many pokemon aren't 1:1 animal counterparts but combine influences from many concepts and species.
Last edited:
I totally agree with this, just look at the names in Squirtles' evolution line squirTLE (turtle) BlasTOISE (tortoise) Or Charmander (Salamander) Charmeleon (Chameleon) and Charizard (Lizard).
I mean of course in certain circumstances Game Freak definitely focus on a particular animal and say right we're turning this idea into a Pokemon - the Nincada/Ninjask/Shedinja line is clearly based solely off the lifecycle of a Cicada - however, in a lot of cases, Pokemon are based off a multitude of animals, Scyther, for instance, is based on a praying mantis, yet he has a head clearly based on that of lizard. Garchomp is based on a Dragon yet borrows a lot of elements - a pointed head, a large fin etc - from sharks.
The artists ability to draw inspiration from a whole range of different sources and then combine them into one design is pretty much the essence of Pokemon!
As far as I'm concerned, names are moreso just what works well as a portmanteau. The creators of a Pokémon don't think "OK, this Pokémon squirts water and is a turtle -- these are necessary to include in the name", they think more like "words associated with water and words associated with turtles", and then the final name is whatever fits. Saying that Charmeleon is a chameleon based off its name is silly given that it has no adaptive features. It's just a reptile which happened to work well with the whole "Char" theme in the evolutionary line.
I also don't agree with Bulbapedia's "origin of Pokémon" section. Using the example of Serperior mentioned earlier on in the thread somewhere, the entire section mentions 15 different species of reptilian creatures. There is no way that a designer was given those 15 reptiles and told to make a Grass-Type Pokémon using features from all of them. It's literally just a "grass snake", I'd say probably moreso a vine snake for the pun or the Quetzalcoatl for pure resemblance, and the fans have overcomplicated the design totally.
As for the whole zodiac thing with the Fire-Type starter Pokémon... yeah, no. As someone else mentioned at some point, the zodiac uses obvious and discernible Pokémon, as do Game Freak. It's simple coincidence that 4 of the 6 designs are on the zodiac. Cyndaquil is no more a rat than Tepig, and Fennekin just isn't a dog at all. Game Freak didn't bring in a team of biologists to teach them the species evolution of the Pokémon in the Chinese zodiac so that they could create an obscure link between their Fire-Type starter Pokémon. They really, really didn't.
I also don't agree with Bulbapedia's "origin of Pokémon" section. Using the example of Serperior mentioned earlier on in the thread somewhere, the entire section mentions 15 different species of reptilian creatures. There is no way that a designer was given those 15 reptiles and told to make a Grass-Type Pokémon using features from all of them. It's literally just a "grass snake", I'd say probably moreso a vine snake for the pun or the Quetzalcoatl for pure resemblance, and the fans have overcomplicated the design totally.
As for the whole zodiac thing with the Fire-Type starter Pokémon... yeah, no. As someone else mentioned at some point, the zodiac uses obvious and discernible Pokémon, as do Game Freak. It's simple coincidence that 4 of the 6 designs are on the zodiac. Cyndaquil is no more a rat than Tepig, and Fennekin just isn't a dog at all. Game Freak didn't bring in a team of biologists to teach them the species evolution of the Pokémon in the Chinese zodiac so that they could create an obscure link between their Fire-Type starter Pokémon. They really, really didn't.
I agree with this 100% the names of Pokemon are in most cases just designed to sound striking, funny and/or cool.
I'm holding out on the idea that it could be based on the Chinese zodiac, although admittedly it's a VERY loose link if there is one. Cyndaquil is the 'Fire Mouse Pokemon' so there's some chance it at least draws some inspiration from rodents and Fennekin, being a fox, is in the same family, Canidae, as domesticated dogs. Admittedly, it's a stretch that they planned it from the start, but maybe - like with the term eeveelutions - they picked up on it and thought well this is something we can use. Yeah it's much more likely it's just a crazy fan theory but at least it's a good one to discuss!
I hope so! But I guess the only way that can happen is if there's a Pokemon based on a species completely seperate from the any of those left on the zodiac. If Game Freak come out with say a Fire Bison, people who like to keep the debate going - etc me ;} - will argue to the hilt that it's from the same family as an Ox and so fits the zodiac theory.
It'd need to be a Pokemon with pretty much zero relation to any of the remaining zodiac animals before everyone accepts that it's wrong! A bird, for instance, would do it!
There's also a theory that all of the Water Starters must be based off animals that aren't fully water-dwelling animals, I don't think this is so much a theory but rather something game freak would like to abide by given they like Ash to be seen walking with his starters!
To make the comparison of Fennekin to the dog zodiac is completely ignoring the meaning of the dog zodiac. Even though both foxes and dogs are canines, they represent completely different things in Chinese lore. In both Japanese and Chinese folklore, foxes are tricksters, while the dog is noble and stoic.
Not to mention how much of a stretch it is to compare the Cyndaquil line to the mouse zodiac. Since the 2nd generation it has been clear that there was no attempt at following a theme and the Chinese zodiac certainly isn't it.
Chimchar and Emboar are only loosely based as well, the real inspiration comes from the Chinese epic - Journey to the West. With Infernape being Sun Wukong and Emboar being Zhu Bajie.
I just wish this theory would die off, it makes no sense.
Not to mention how much of a stretch it is to compare the Cyndaquil line to the mouse zodiac. Since the 2nd generation it has been clear that there was no attempt at following a theme and the Chinese zodiac certainly isn't it.
Chimchar and Emboar are only loosely based as well, the real inspiration comes from the Chinese epic - Journey to the West. With Infernape being Sun Wukong and Emboar being Zhu Bajie.
I just wish this theory would die off, it makes no sense.
Last edited:
Foxes are tricksters in European folklore and fables as well, just look at the saying "sly as a fox". Not quite sure if I would characterize dogs in European folklore as "stoic", but certainly noble and loyal.
It;s strange how often animal sterotypes are the same over huge stretches of the globes, and then they are sometimes completely different, like the Rat being filthy, dumb and greedy in European fables, but being seen as a symbol of intelligence and vitality in the east. (And being absolutely adorable in real life
)As to the zodiac theory, I guess people just love interpreting patterns into things small and large. Let's see what fire starter we get ^_^ It's dificult to think of animals that could not, with a lot of interpretation, made to fit the zodiac theory:
anything feline -> Tiger
anything with hooves -> sheep, horse, oxen.
anything remotely rodent related -> Rabbit (i know Lagomoprh, not rodent, but yeah)
I could even see people interpreting a wide variety of reptiles to symbolize the Snake. Or a kangaroo to symbolize the Rabbits (both jump and have long ears, its no more of a stretch than an echidna symbolizing the rat)
The only thing that really would really kill this theory in the popular mind would be to get another fire-bird, -dog, -pig or (sufficiently un-snake like) lizard/dragon. A turtle/tortoise thing might work too (you can't make a a turtle a snake, no matter how much you interpret it)
Last edited: