Baby Pokémon

T

TTEchidna

追放されたバカ
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,647
Reaction score
1
Are they really much babies anymore? What's the difference between Pichu and Dratini, aside from stats and types? What makes Bonsly any different than Psyduck, aside from its inability to breed?

I know in the TCG Pichu and Bonsly get their special classification, and that unlike the other two they're in the No eggs egg group, but really, what difference is there in their evolutionary lines? Is Sudowoodo any more evolved than Golduck is? Both of them evolved once from their lowest forms, and both cannot evolve further. Same with Dragonite and Raichu. How do they differ besides the fact that Dratini and Dragonair evolve by very vastly different means than Pichu and Pikachu.

Basically, what I'm saying is this...

If on Bulbapedia we were to categorize Pokémon by their evolutionary level, would we categorize Clefable with Floatzel or with Ampharos?

The TCG categorizes Clefable and Floatzel as both Stage 1. Evolutionary lines categorize Clefable and Ampharos as the second evolution of their most basic forms. What are they, and what should we categorize them as?

Let's also not forget that in Gen IV you can catch them all in the wild, and several unevolved Pokémon from previous generations, like Poochyena, must be bred from their evolved forms to get them.
 
Trading Card Game classifications appear to make the most sense. In conversation and practice, I refer to them as such.
 
From what I know, Baby Pokémon can't breed, so that's one difference over a "normal" first-stage evolution...

Geo - a.k.a. Jioruji Derako
 
TTE and I discussed this for a long time last night, and we agreed that the terms Baby, Basic, Stage 1, and Stage 2 should be completely abandoned in favor of:

Base (lowest level of the family, period)
Evolutionary level 1
Evolutionary level 2

et cetera.
 
I don't agree with classifying pre-evolutions as base Pokémon.
The differences between the pre-evolutions and the base stage are pretty clearly illustrated in the reasons mentioned in this thread. Also, there is the fact that every pre-evolution introduced since generation III has to be bred from special conditions. (parents holding one of the incense items)

I see nothing wrong with using a manner of classification similar to the one used by the TCG. (where Clefable counts as a Stage 1 evolution) This would also avoid the inevitable confusion of people attempting to use pre-evolutions for breeding because they are listed as base Pokémon on the 'pedia.
 
I'd be fine with that... if there were four-stage lines.

Riolu and Smoochum are similar, aren't they? Can't breed. Evolve once. Riolu's Basic in the TCG, Smoochum isn't. Either Lucario's basic or Jynx is a first evolution. Jynx is an evolved form since Gen II.

As we can see from the anime, they kinda disregard the whole "150" thing these days. They don't mention anything about new evolutions not having existed, nor do they mention a lack of prevos.

Having not seen the episode in which Paul's Elekid evolves... I gotta wonder. Does someone scan it with a Dex, and does it say "Electabuzz, the evolved form of Elekid" or what? Same with Brock's Bonsly evolving into Sudowoodo. If it does, it's certain. If it doesn't, it's still ambiguous.

The incenses were an excuse for them to not get calls about "WHY CANT I GET MIM JUNIR IN RUBBY & SAFIRE" and "WHY CANT I GET WHYNOT IN GOAL AND SILVA". They'd likely exist for the Gen II prevos, too, if breeding hadn't been introduced in Gen II!
 
I thought Riolu was a baby... The TCG appearantly treat Riolu and Togepi differently than in the games.
 
Dawn scans Sudowoodo and Electabuzz:

"Sudowoodo. The Imitation Pokémon. Disguised as a tree, it's the evolved form of Bonsly."

"Electabuzz. The Electic Pokémon. An evolved form of Elekid. It appears near power generators and because it eats electricity it can cause blackouts."
 
Last edited:
TTEchidna said:
If on Bulbapedia we were to categorize Pokémon by their evolutionary level, would we categorize Clefable with Floatzel or with Ampharos?
Click to expand...

Why not both?

It's quite simple really.

The final form is exactly that, and the first form/baby form is the same. If there is a middle evolution, call it an intermediate.

This way, you have a classification for all Pokémon, whether they have 1, 2 or 3 stage evolutionary lines.

On this basis, then, the final evolution is the one classed first. A Pokémon with an evolutionary line of purely itself would be classed as the final form. Jynx and Lucario, the final stage of a two-stage line, would be as well, as would something like Electivire.

The next classification is that of the "baby" Pokémon, which is the first Pokémon of either a 2 or 3 stage line.

The classification figured out next is the one for the middle Pokémon of 3-stage evolutionary lines, such as Magmar or Prinplup.

From there you would then see if you would seperate the "babies" into seperate categories of ones that can and can't breed.

[/mytwocents]
 
I always interpreted "baby" to mean the following:

  • Fully devolved.
  • Can evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation.
  • Cannot breed.
Thus, that would make Pichu, Cleffa, Igglybuff, Tyrogue, Smoochum, Magby, Azurill, Wynaut, Budew, Bonsly, Mime Jr., Happiny, Munchlax and Mantyke all babies.

Riolu's not a baby since both it and Lucario are Gen 4 Pokémon. Similarly, Togepi isn't a baby since it and Togetic are Gen 2, and Togekiss is Gen 4.

Now some of you might think "But hold on Nebbles! If Riolu and Togepi aren't baby Pokémon since they evolve into Pokémon of their own generation and not previous ones, why is Tyrogue there? Aren't both it and Hitmontop Gen 2 Pokémon?"

To that, I'd say yes, you are right. They are. But there is no guarantee that a Tyrogue will evolve into Hitmontop, otherwise 'Lee and 'Chan wouldn't exist, and those two are certainly Gen 1s. Not that it says "can evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation", not "does evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation". If we were going by that definition, you could interpret that as meaning there is no such thing as a baby Pokémon - evolution, although beneficial, isn't mandatory. But I digress.

Also, there rises the problem of Budew, since generation wise its evolution chain goes 4-3-4. The fact that it goes as such and there is no way to bypass the Roselia stage, it's a baby.

Pokémon like Lickitung, Aipom, Nosepass or Onix which are the basic form but evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a later generation (1-4, 2-4, 3-4 and 1-2 respectively) aren't babies, since they can breed.

Pokémon that can't breed aren't necessarily babies. One word: Arceus. Another one: Deoxys. =P

As you can tell, I have a very strict definition. Heh heh...

But yeah, I don't see the need to change. The TCG is pretty much all we're going to get for labeling evolution levels, hence the basis for my definition. I reckon we should just stick with it. Bulbapedia's a place for canon, not for fanon. TCG's the only place where evolution levels are labeled explicitly (as Baby, Basic, Stage 1 or Stage 2) so that's what we should use.
 
Th "can't breed" clause doesn't make it a baby, no. But generally, "Baby" Pokémon can't breed, and evolve via happiness. The second clause is the more important one I think; it's something that was added in to make up for the fact that if they had added a specific level for a Baby to evolve at, then it would technically be possible to have an evolved form at a level lower then when it should have evolved. (For example, if they had made Pichu evolve at level 10, then it would defy in-game logic to have a level 5 Pikachu in existence.)

I would classify Riolu as a Baby Pokémon because of this; adding the pre-evolution after the original Pokémon was released doesn't seem like an airtight classification to me. Riolu shares all the other traits with guys like Pichu, and I'm certain this is on purpose; the only way to gain Riolu in-game is through an egg as well, which should count for something. It's obviously meant as a Baby Pokémon. I'd like to think the fact that most Baby Pokémon forms were released after their evolved forms were released is simply a coincidence, not a defining factor. The whole "Baby" idea was introduced later in the series, and it stands to reason now that newer games could start releasing evolutions with Baby forms all in the same generation.

On the other hand, there's no way to catch Lucario in the wild, so while you can only gain Riolu via breeding, you can also only obtain Lucario via evolution.

For categorization purposes, perhaps we could have a "Baby" category, that's separate from the other categories; it could still be categorized as a level-one evolutionary form for that purpose. Riolu would count as the first level evolution, mainly because you can't get a level 1 Lucario in-game. Level 2's the lowest you can get.
However, Pikachu can be obtained at as low a level as Pichu, so it's different. This makes Pichu seem a little more disconnected from Pikachu's evolutionary line; a "lower then level 1" almost.

I dunno. The whole "Baby" thing was never explained in official terms really, so I'm not sure what to say on the subject.

Geo - a.k.a. Jioruji Derako
 
I asked Pokémon.com a while back when everyone on Wikipedia was arguing over whether Togepi was a baby or not. I never got an snswer...
 
Does it really matter when exactly a Pokémon is introduced to determine if it is a baby or not? Just because Togepi was first introduced in the anime and thus more "famous" then it's evolved form, doesn't exactly mean that it should be totally excluded from the definition of a baby. Same goes for Riolu, It's evolved form was the first to be promoted. Both Pokémon families were all planned at the same time.

Anyway, perhaps there are even further dividing factors between baby Pokémon, like the amount of moves the baby form can learn. Perhaps baby Pokémon can be further divided into "infant" and "toddler" (of course, these are totally unoffical)

Infant baby Pokémon could be babies that learn their final move realatively early in it's development, say level 16. Pichu and Budew come to mind.

Toddler baby Pokémon would be baby Pokémon that learn their final move at level 50 something. They would be almost indistingishable from normal base Pokémon except for the fact that they are unable to breed. Munchlax and Bonsly are like this.

Anyway, there are reasons as to why certain Pokémon are unable to breed in the first place:

1. Legendaries are unable to breed to prevent players from getting more of them (Though Phione is an exception, but it could be thought off as a "demo Manaphy", and doesn't evolve into it.)

2. Baby Pokémon are unable to breed because, well, biologically, they are immature. Evolution for them is akin to hitting puberty.
 
[22:55:05] Paperfairy17: May I just post our log?
[22:55:11] TTFutureEchidna: Do it.
[22:55:11] *** Auto-response sent to TTFutureEchidna: I am asleep. Leave a message or contact my mobile.
[22:55:19] TTFutureEchidna: You LIAR.
[22:55:23] TTFutureEchidna: YOU ARE NOT ASLEEP.
[22:55:24] Paperfairy17: I was.
[22:55:27] Paperfairy17: crap
[22:55:29] Paperfairy17: I lost it.
[22:55:34] TTFutureEchidna: ...lost it.
[22:55:34] Paperfairy17: Completely.
[22:55:36] TTFutureEchidna: Pf.
[22:55:38] Paperfairy17: 100% gone.
[22:55:54] TTFutureEchidna: Damn.
[22:56:09] Paperfairy17: We already discussed everything in that thread.
[22:57:06] TTFutureEchidna: Yeah.
[22:57:27] Paperfairy17: Should we just restate the aforementioned within the thread?



Believe me, so far, nobody has presented anything that we already did not discuss. Can somebody here explain to me how to retrieve a file that was not deleted, but overwritten? Then I can post it.

Until then, I will just multi quote and refute in a few hours.
 
SaturnYoshi said:
I thought Riolu was a baby... The TCG appearantly treat Riolu and Togepi differently than in the games.
Click to expand...

The Trading Card Game does not exactly set a good example for classification. If they did, we would not be having this discussion.

Matthew Lloyd said:
Why not both?

It's quite simple really.

The final form is exactly that, and the first form/baby form is the same. If there is a middle evolution, call it an intermediate.

This way, you have a classification for all Pokémon, whether they have 1, 2 or 3 stage evolutionary lines.

On this basis, then, the final evolution is the one classed first. A Pokémon with an evolutionary line of purely itself would be classed as the final form. Jynx and Lucario, the final stage of a two-stage line, would be as well, as would something like Electivire.

The next classification is that of the "baby" Pokémon, which is the first Pokémon of either a 2 or 3 stage line.

The classification figured out next is the one for the middle Pokémon of 3-stage evolutionary lines, such as Magmar or Prinplup.

From there you would then see if you would seperate the "babies" into seperate categories of ones that can and can't breed.

[/mytwocents]
Click to expand...

For Bulbapedia's classification purposes, we require a definition that covers all "Baby" Pokémon. This will work if you can do this.

Nebula said:
I always interpreted "baby" to mean the following:

  • Fully devolved.
  • Can evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation.
  • Cannot breed.
Thus, that would make Pichu, Cleffa, Igglybuff, Tyrogue, Smoochum, Magby, Azurill, Wynaut, Budew, Bonsly, Mime Jr., Happiny, Munchlax and Mantyke all babies.

Riolu's not a baby since both it and Lucario are Gen 4 Pokémon. Similarly, Togepi isn't a baby since it and Togetic are Gen 2, and Togekiss is Gen 4.

Now some of you might think "But hold on Nebbles! If Riolu and Togepi aren't baby Pokémon since they evolve into Pokémon of their own generation and not previous ones, why is Tyrogue there? Aren't both it and Hitmontop Gen 2 Pokémon?"

To that, I'd say yes, you are right. They are. But there is no guarantee that a Tyrogue will evolve into Hitmontop, otherwise 'Lee and 'Chan wouldn't exist, and those two are certainly Gen 1s. Not that it says "can evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation", not "does evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a previous generation". If we were going by that definition, you could interpret that as meaning there is no such thing as a baby Pokémon - evolution, although beneficial, isn't mandatory. But I digress.

Also, there rises the problem of Budew, since generation wise its evolution chain goes 4-3-4. The fact that it goes as such and there is no way to bypass the Roselia stage, it's a baby.

Pokémon like Lickitung, Aipom, Nosepass or Onix which are the basic form but evolve into a Pokémon introduced in a later generation (1-4, 2-4, 3-4 and 1-2 respectively) aren't babies, since they can breed.

Pokémon that can't breed aren't necessarily babies. One word: Arceus. Another one: Deoxys. =P

As you can tell, I have a very strict definition. Heh heh...

But yeah, I don't see the need to change. The TCG is pretty much all we're going to get for labeling evolution levels, hence the basis for my definition. I reckon we should just stick with it. Bulbapedia's a place for canon, not for fanon. TCG's the only place where evolution levels are labeled explicitly (as Baby, Basic, Stage 1 or Stage 2) so that's what we should use.
Click to expand...
Previously, our arguements are indentical. However...

Pichu is Baby
Pikachu is.... stage 1? basic?

Basic is defined in the TCG as the first form, and Stage 1 is defined as a Pokémon that has undergone evolution. Thus, Pikachu is a Stage 1.... however the TCG plays it as a Basic.

The TCG does not work in classification.


Jioruji Derako said:
Th "can't breed" clause doesn't make it a baby, no. But generally, "Baby" Pokémon can't breed, and evolve via happiness. The second clause is the more important one I think; it's something that was added in to make up for the fact that if they had added a specific level for a Baby to evolve at, then it would technically be possible to have an evolved form at a level lower then when it should have evolved. (For example, if they had made Pichu evolve at level 10, then it would defy in-game logic to have a level 5 Pikachu in existence.)

I would classify Riolu as a Baby Pokémon because of this; adding the pre-evolution after the original Pokémon was released doesn't seem like an airtight classification to me. Riolu shares all the other traits with guys like Pichu, and I'm certain this is on purpose; the only way to gain Riolu in-game is through an egg as well, which should count for something. It's obviously meant as a Baby Pokémon. I'd like to think the fact that most Baby Pokémon forms were released after their evolved forms were released is simply a coincidence, not a defining factor. The whole "Baby" idea was introduced later in the series, and it stands to reason now that newer games could start releasing evolutions with Baby forms all in the same generation.

On the other hand, there's no way to catch Lucario in the wild, so while you can only gain Riolu via breeding, you can also only obtain Lucario via evolution.

For categorization purposes, perhaps we could have a "Baby" category, that's separate from the other categories; it could still be categorized as a level-one evolutionary form for that purpose. Riolu would count as the first level evolution, mainly because you can't get a level 1 Lucario in-game. Level 2's the lowest you can get.
However, Pikachu can be obtained at as low a level as Pichu, so it's different. This makes Pichu seem a little more disconnected from Pikachu's evolutionary line; a "lower then level 1" almost.

I dunno. The whole "Baby" thing was never explained in official terms really, so I'm not sure what to say on the subject.

Geo - a.k.a. Jioruji Derako
Click to expand...


1)Level 9 Pidgeotto.
2)Definitions must be strict, or they are no longer definition. If Riolu is a Baby, a definition must be created in which he fits.
3) Without the use of Pal Park, there is also no way to obtain Poochyena without breeding, but that does not make it a special case, does it? So why does Lucario recieve said treatment?

SaturnYoshi said:
I asked Pokémon.com a while back when everyone on Wikipedia was arguing over whether Togepi was a baby or not. I never got an snswer...
Click to expand...

Unreliable source.

PDL said:
Does it really matter when exactly a Pokémon is introduced to determine if it is a baby or not? Just because Togepi was first introduced in the anime and thus more "famous" then it's evolved form, doesn't exactly mean that it should be totally excluded from the definition of a baby. Same goes for Riolu, It's evolved form was the first to be promoted. Both Pokémon families were all planned at the same time.

Anyway, perhaps there are even further dividing factors between baby Pokémon, like the amount of moves the baby form can learn. Perhaps baby Pokémon can be further divided into "infant" and "toddler" (of course, these are totally unoffical)

Infant baby Pokémon could be babies that learn their final move realatively early in it's development, say level 16. Pichu and Budew come to mind.

Toddler baby Pokémon would be baby Pokémon that learn their final move at level 50 something. They would be almost indistingishable from normal base Pokémon except for the fact that they are unable to breed. Munchlax and Bonsly are like this.

Anyway, there are reasons as to why certain Pokémon are unable to breed in the first place:

1. Legendaries are unable to breed to prevent players from getting more of them (Though Phione is an exception, but it could be thought off as a "demo Manaphy", and doesn't evolve into it.)

2. Baby Pokémon are unable to breed because, well, biologically, they are immature. Evolution for them is akin to hitting puberty.
Click to expand...

As aforementioned, no exceptions can be made in defining things.
Nidorina is also sterile. Nidorina is a Baby?
 
Paperfairy said:
Nidorina is also sterile. Nidorina is a Baby?
Click to expand...

I've always been puzzled by this... Perhaps the reason why they were made unbreedable was for programming reasons. If I recall correctly, offspring off the female Nidoran can be either female or male nidoran. Perhaps they were unable to carry this kind of data over to it's evolved forms.
 
Hmm. Think about it. The egg is always the lowest possible evolution of the female. So, if Nidoqueen bred with Nidoking, it would definitely give a Female Nidoran. And don't forget, it can't be the case with Gallade and Gardevoir because they have different National Dex numbers (I blame Gen I). Different Dex numbers, different Pokémon. There, that's it then.

What leaves me confused is Nidoran♀'s breeding...
 
Please note: The thread is from 17 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom