Is "Pokemon" a species?

[Shining Raichu]

A thought occurred to me while I was making a post in the PGen DCC just then.

There are currently 649 different species of Pokemon. Some of these species are similar to each other (e.g. bird Pokemon such as Spearow and Pidgey could easily be separate species of bird) while other species of Pokemon are wildly different from one another - for instance, a Staryu and a Bulbasaur have zero similarities whatsoever.

Yet despite the fact they both still fall under the umbrella term of "Pokemon".

So, this begs the question: Is "Pokemon" a species? Are the differences between Pokemon species similar to the differences seen between species of birds or fish (i.e. falcons and eagles are two different creatures that fall under the umbrella term of "bird") or the differences between races of humans - black, Asian, caucasian, etc?

And furthermore, if you do believe that "Pokemon" is its own species, what is the criteria for any creature to be a Pokemon? How do we know that humans are not Pokemon, just as in our world we say humans are a species of animal? Discuss!

 

[EGKangaroo]

I'd figure the best way that pokémon could be defined is a group of species of animals that carry specific traits unique to them which makes them stand out from humans. I've found that pokémon is pretty much what I believe to be that universe's substitute for what we have as just animals. But what is to say that humans aren't pokémon then? It's important to remember that pokémon is a portmanteau of pocket monsters, thus it's logical to believe that the necessary condition for an entity to be a pokémon is for it to be able to be caught into a pokéball and thus be able to be stored inside one's pocket, hence pocket monster.

 

[Legobricks]

This is extremely easy to answer with some knowledge of taxonomy.
'Pokemon' would be a domain, with humans in addition to the regular trees and grass one finds on the map probably classified under their own domain, as the former possess supernatural powers and the latter do not, and things have been this way for as long back as can be relevant according to the (lack of) history of the Pokemon universe. The Pokemon domain would consist of various kingdoms which would possibly be qualified by their elemental types in-universe, but in a real-world context they would fall within our Animalia, Plantae and Fungi kingdoms (the others are Protista, Archaea and Bacteria but no Pokemon fits into those; PokeRus is a virus and so quite different).

Regarding further classification, below I made an example of Pidgey. In probability:
Pidgey would fall under a different phylum to Kabuto (Bilateria vs. Arthropoda).
Pidgey would fall under a different class to Archen (Aves vs. Avialae).
Pidgey would fall under a different order to Spearow (Columbiformes vs. Passeriformes).
Making distinctions between family and genus goes beyond necessary for most Pokemon.
Pidgey, Pidgeotto and Pidgeot would be the same species, being divided individually into subspecies; which perhaps shinies would be too, although shininess is probably due to a genetic abnormality instead.

 

[Oryx]

But Cassino, a species is usually defined as animals that can interbreed and make (non-sterile) offspring. Archen and Pidgey can interbreed, for example. How does that fit into your 'extremely easy' answer?

 

[Mew~]

I always thought of each and every Pokémon being their own Species, I think it's been referenced that way a few times, but alas I haven't the most amazing memory.

But yeah. I just think of Pokémon as the word Animal.

 

[Legobricks]

But Cassino, a species is usually defined as animals that can interbreed and make (non-sterile) offspring. Archen and Pidgey can interbreed, for example. How does that fit into your 'extremely easy' answer?

Pokemon interbreed more on a class level, that just has to be accepted and the definition of species changed to fit the context of the universe. I would therefore define 'species' in the Pokemon universe as creatures grouped by their evolutionary relatives (ex. Pidgey, Pidgeotto and Pidgeot make a species and are individually subspecies, or if you like they make a genus and are individually species; either way it's still relatively the same). Pokemon without such relatives (ex. Farfetch'd) are of course single, distinct species.

 

[Esper]

Perhaps there is some mixture of asexual breeding going on with the whole breeding process so that offspring stay one species instead of becoming a hybrid.

 

[Impergator]

If it's not a species.. what is it then ?

 

[psyanic]

I've always thought that Pokemon was used interchangeably for "animal" in their world, except their animals can burn your house down.

 

[Seki]

Pokemon is a term for animals in my opinion. Like you can just call a dog and a bird, "animal". So in other words, you can call a Pidgey and Bulbasaur a "Pokemon".

 

[voicerocker]

Simply put, a Pokemon (pocket monster) would be classified as any creature that be captured with a PokeBall. And no, humans aren't Pokemon, the same way trees and grass are not Pokemon. Never has a PokeBall been effective on a human, in the game or anime, so this rules out that humans are Pokemon as well.

Also, remember that Pokemon is a GAME of fictional creatures with powers. Just because it doesn't make sense in our world doesn't mean it has to. (For instance, almost any Pokemon can breed with a Ditto. Need I say more?)

 

[Zeffy]

Pokemon = animals (except humans, of course)
Egg groups = species

I believe these 4 words pretty much sums up my answer. No need for explanations or anything, it's pretty much self-explanatory anyways. xP

 

[SolarAbusoru]

Remember, Pokemon is a Pormanteau of Pocket and Monster.
Basically, the word Pokemon denotes any species that can be stored in a Pokeball for pocket carrying.

 

[Elite Overlord LeSabre™]

Well, this opinion is coming from the universe I strictly created for my fan fiction universe, so take that how you may.

IMO...
*Pokemon are a set of creatures that are distinct from animals. There are some parts of the world where Pokemon do not exist but animals do, and vice versa. I don't know about the two co-existing in the same area, I guess I've never given it any though and kept the two mutually exclusive. Pokemon differ from animals by something inherent internally (perhaps in their DNA), which lets them be captured in Pokeballs and lets them use their attacks, which normal animals cannot use.

 

[DarkIceForever]

I think I've seen actual fish in the anime..Then again James thought how good his Magikarp would taste. Does that mean they slaughter Miltank for beef? Or do they have cows?

??? Pokemon are animals..???

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Pokemon seem to be a separate kind of animal that is parallel to normal animals. A lot of anatomical errors for example, such as Chatot not having zygodactyl claws like true parrots, might seem to indicate something like this. Perhaps they are animals exposed to something? That might explain Clefairy too, and why they can be stored in Pokeballs.

In addition, in the Pokedex, many Pokemon are referred to as their real life counterparts, not only in their "[whatever] Pokemon" description, but sometimes even the entries themselves - Lickitung is a good example, said to have a tongue like a chameleon's. If they were animals they wouldn't have any association that would put a Pokemon like Beldum in the same taxonomic relationship as that of something like Pidgey or Zigzagoon.

 

[CliveKoopa]

No, thats like saying all animals are one species. Its a bit like the Mystics from Chrono Trigger who all appear to be classed as one species even though there are many kinds of mystics.

 

[blue]

Well there are many different species of Pokémon so yes and no, for example there are Tigers that are a species but there are many different subspecies of tiger i.e Bengal Tiger, Malayan Tiger, South China Tiger etc. I think Pokémon is a species then the actual Pokémon themselves are split into several different subspecies.

 

[alehizzle]

I've always thought the easiest way to explain it is to think of "Pokemon" as a fancy word for "animals". Look at it this way:

Sparrows and dogs are both "animals," but they aren't the same species. German shepherds and border collies are both different varieties of the same species.

Spearow and Growlithe are both "Pokemon," but they aren't the same species. Growlithe and Arcanine are both different varieties of the same species.

Does that make sense?

 

[Oryx]

I've always thought the easiest way to explain it is to think of "Pokemon" as a fancy word for "animals". Look at it this way:

Sparrows and dogs are both "animals," but they aren't the same species. German shepherds and border collies are both different varieties of the same species.

Spearow and Growlithe are both "Pokemon," but they aren't the same species. Growlithe and Arcanine are both different varieties of the same species.

Does that make sense?

But Pokemon of two different species can breed with each other and make offspring, something that a dog and a cat for example can't do. ;x