SPOILERS! Mysteries and Conspiracies of Pokemon

[Pikachu315111]

If we're posting our Kangaskhan theories, I once thought on how to explain how Kangaskhan comes out with baby in its pouch when it hatches. It's a bit out there, but to me it makes sense:

The baby isn't exactly a baby but rather an incomplete clone. While under care of the mother Kangaskan it has the exact same DNA but its unstable (the mother's DNA is stable, I'll explain). When a Kangaskan breeds it doesn't develop a new Kangaskhan that's inside the egg but rather the baby in the pouch regresses back to an embryonic state and it has the egg form around it. Once the egg is laid the mother than grows a new "baby Kangaskan" quickly to replace the old one. Inside the egg the once baby Kangaskhan's DNA restructures to include the father's DNA, becoming stable. Once it has developed enough in the egg so that it can be considered a full grown Kangaskhan, it too develops a "baby Kangaskan" in its pouch. And thus the cycle is complete and repeats.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I'll say a lot of that is just coincidence.
First their hair are completely two different shades of green. Wally is what you could all green but Wallace is more turquoise to match him being a Water-type Gym Leader.
Don't see how them wearing white makes them related. Also their style of clothes are completely different.
That's only in the English version, in the Japanese version their name is Mikuri (Wallace's Japanese name) and Mitsuru (Wally's). And before you say they sound the same they have different meanings. Mikuri is the Japanese name of a species of plant that grows around water, Sparganium erectum, as well as containing the Japanese words for beauty (mi), sea (umi), and/or water (mizu). Mitsuru meanwhile contains "tsuru" which, depending what Japanese language you use, can mean "vine" (a usually green plant) or "crane", possibly a reference to the Japanese act of folding one thousand origami cranes so one can be granted a wish.

In my conclusion they aren't related. Further proof comes from Wallace family all having different appearances (admittedly that's due to them using typical trainer class sprites, in the manga they do have his cousin Wanda looking similar to him) and in ORAS we meet a relative of Wallace, Lisia, who does resemble her uncle in hair and clothing style (her name in Japanese also references Sootopolis City).

For a long time, I thought Agatha would be a relative of that Sinnoh old woman because of their Japanese names.
Seems like they didn't say anything about them though.

 

[Norne]

I think they are polar expies.

Agatha is brash and aggressive in its introduction, whereas Bertha is calm and gentle. Both favor a primarily offensive type with key resistances and are overall seasoned fighters.

 

[The_Emperor]

I don't recall this mystery being covered yet, so does anybody have an explanation for the ridiculous amount of similarities between Wally and Wallace from the hoenn region? I mean, they both have green hair, wear primarily white, with some purple (depends on the game), and have the same name (Wally is generally short for Wallace). Wally could easily be Wallace at an earlier age or a close relative, however I don't recall any ingame info on whether or not they are connected. Their only major difference is Pokemon preference and personality- with Wally being a bit more withdrawn and Wallace more flamboyant. I don't know how two characters could have virtually the same base design and name and not be at all related.

Although they do not have exactly the same color palette, I think they are too similar to pass up. I would almost add N too, but he is not from the hoenn region so his similarities are not as noticeable (once again; green hair, white clothing). Green hair is not a normal, natural, common thing, so with three major characters in pokemkn having it, I would think there may be some connection.

Also, apologies for not properly attaching an image comparison, my phone is jank right now. I'll try to add one later if I can. Emerald Wallace and ORAS Wally seem to bear the most similarities.

Maybe Wallace represenses what Wally could become if he trained hard enough...

 

[Karxrida]

I think they are polar expies.

Agatha is brash and aggressive in its introduction, whereas Bertha is calm and gentle. Both favor a primarily offensive type with key resistances and are overall seasoned fighters.

I'm pretty sure that's not how Expy works. They just have contrasting personalities.

 

[WaffleTitan]

Less of a conspiracy/mystery and more of a speculation:
What if the baby that all Kangaskhan carry around is not an actual Pokémon, but in fact, a Substitute they create because they want kids?
That would explain why a caught Kangaskhan has a baby in it's pouch and why the "baby" gets the Mega boost.

I like this theory, it's probably the most reasonable explanation I've heard on Kangaskhan so far. However, if we take the anime into account (which normally we shouldn't do) I think that kangaskhan babies are intended to be real babies. Unfortunately game freak cornered themselves when they didn't give an explanation and just decided to have kangaskhan come right out of the egg with a baby, one that will never grow up. If we do just take the games into account though, and not any other canon, then I think that the substitute idea is the best we've got.

 

[Pikachu315111]

I like this theory, it's probably the most reasonable explanation I've heard on Kangaskhan so far. However, if we take the anime into account (which normally we shouldn't do) I think that kangaskhan babies are intended to be real babies. Unfortunately game freak cornered themselves when they didn't give an explanation and just decided to have kangaskhan come right out of the egg with a baby, one that will never grow up. If we do just take the games into account though, and not any other canon, then I think that the substitute idea is the best we've got.

Except the games also treat the baby Kangaskhan as a living thing, the most notable example of this is when Kangaskhan Mega Evolves and the baby is able to fight. While I stand by theory, I think we're going to have to pull off the ol' MST3K Mantra on this:

Just replace 'show' with 'game'

Kangaskhan is just based on a (Mongolian warrior) kangaroo who are most famously known for carrying their young in their pouch. It was done back in the early days of Pokemon, before breeding was a thing and even when it became a thing the image of a baby in the mother's pouch was so iconic they just couldn't separate the two otherwise Gen II would have probably introduced a pre-evolution as a baby Pokemon & removed the baby from the pouch.

I also wonder if they didn't do that for "continuity" reasons, if you trade a Gen I Kangaskhan to Gen II then what would have happened to the baby? Do you split them into two Pokemon, what if the trader doesn't have extra room in their party? Were they able to program it back then you couldn't trade a certain Pokemon unless you had an extra slot in your party? And it's not like with them removing the Remoraid from Mantine's sprite in Gen III, you can assume the Remoraid just swam off (odd it was able to do that when you also technically owned it, but maybe the Pokeball only registered the Mantine and the Remoraid was considered "equipment" thus able to leave when it felt like it) but the baby Kangaskhan is a baby plus Kangaskhan are very protective of their babies so they wouldn't just abandon them.

 

[WaffleTitan]

Except the games also treat the baby Kangaskhan as a living thing, the most notable example of this is when Kangaskhan Mega Evolves and the baby is able to fight. While I stand by theory, I think we're going to have to pull off the ol' MST3K Mantra on this:

Just replace 'show' with 'game'

Kangaskhan is just based on a (Mongolian warrior) kangaroo who are most famously known for carrying their young in their pouch. It was done back in the early days of Pokemon, before breeding was a thing and even when it became a thing the image of a baby in the mother's pouch was so iconic they just couldn't separate the two otherwise Gen II would have probably introduced a pre-evolution as a baby Pokemon & removed the baby from the pouch.

I also wonder if they didn't do that for "continuity" reasons, if you trade a Gen I Kangaskhan to Gen II then what would have happened to the baby? Do you split them into two Pokemon, what if the trader doesn't have extra room in their party? Were they able to program it back then you couldn't trade a certain Pokemon unless you had an extra slot in your party? And it's not like with them removing the Remoraid from Mantine's sprite in Gen III, you can assume the Remoraid just swam off (odd it was able to do that when you also technically owned it, but maybe the Pokeball only registered the Mantine and the Remoraid was considered "equipment" thus able to leave when it felt like it) but the baby Kangaskhan is a baby plus Kangaskhan are very protective of their babies so they wouldn't just abandon them.

Yeah, that fact that the baby in the mega evolution actually functions and acts like a regular Pokemon really complicates things further. I agree that the MST3K mantra is the only true way to go, but exploring the possible explanations is fun too!

 

[Siggu]

Certain abilities have their effects (And the reason they happen) explained through their name, and optionally some NPC talking about them.

But what about those that don't have any remote explanation?

For instance, upon noticing Unaware works because the user doesn't notice the opponent's battling ability has changed in any way, or that Defiant involves the user rejecting the notion of being at a disadvantage, I started wondering... what's the basis behind Contrary?

 

[WaffleTitan]

Certain abilities have their effects (And the reason they happen) explained through their name, and optionally some NPC talking about them.

But what about those that don't have any remote explanation?

For instance, upon noticing Unaware works because the user doesn't notice the opponent's battling ability has changed in any way, or that Defiant involves the user rejecting the notion of being at a disadvantage, I started wondering... what's the basis behind Contrary?

Well contrary itself basically means opposite ("perversely inclined to disagree or to do the opposite of what is expected or desired" via Google), so I would imagine it being along the lines of the way you explained defiant, from a emotional mindset. How in practice something like serperior could get faster from being caught in a sticky web, I don't know, but I think the idea is just that the Pokemon will do the opposite of what is expected (for stat boosts/losses).

 

[Koumashiki]

Certain abilities have their effects (And the reason they happen) explained through their name, and optionally some NPC talking about them.

But what about those that don't have any remote explanation?

For instance, upon noticing Unaware works because the user doesn't notice the opponent's battling ability has changed in any way, or that Defiant involves the user rejecting the notion of being at a disadvantage, I started wondering... what's the basis behind Contrary?

It might explain a bit if looking into its Japanese name - "Amanojaku". "Amanojaku" is the name of an oni-like creature in Japanese lore, often being considered the spirit contradiction and perversity. So just some lore stuff, I'd say. The word itself can also be understood as devil's advocate.

(Though I can't quite relate it to Shuckle and Spinda when they got this ability in gen V, considering a lot of pokemon's abilities are taken from context)

 

[Pikachu315111]

Certain abilities have their effects (And the reason they happen) explained through their name, and optionally some NPC talking about them.

But what about those that don't have any remote explanation?

For instance, upon noticing Unaware works because the user doesn't notice the opponent's battling ability has changed in any way, or that Defiant involves the user rejecting the notion of being at a disadvantage, I started wondering... what's the basis behind Contrary?

Well I always took Abilities as just something natural the Pokemon can do, it doesn't have to think about it to activate it like a Move. Shuckle, Spinda, Snivy family, and the Inkay family all get an Ability which reverses stat changes (their body probably tenses up when afflicted with a negative change and overcompensates for it while it may lax when experiencing a positive change but too much it loses more than it gains). So what do you call such an Ability? Hmm, well when someone points out something they don't agree with just for argument sake it's called being a "devil's advocate". You're doing the opposite of what you'd normally do. And it fits as these Pokemon not only reverse negative stat changes but positives too, which is probably something they don't want.

Or as Koumashiki pointed out, the name "Amanojaku" was picked first with the thought process these Pokemon's traits are sort of like the contradiction oni's behavior and when translated into English, the fact the name is about opposites and a monster, Devil's Advocate is apt adaptation.

 

[Siggu]

Is it right that I've just now imagined Contrary users as hipsters - as in they reverse stat changes because it's sooooo typical that Leaf Storm halves your Special Attack, that Sticky Web lowers your Speed or that Shell Smash raises offenses and lowers defenses?

 

[WaffleTitan]

Recently I was looking up some statistics and move pools for various Pokemon on bulbapedia when I came upon crawdaunt, which reminded me of something. It was the similarity of the pattern on sharpedo, garchomp, and, to a lesser degree, crawdaunt. They all have a very similar yellow star-like pattern on their faces. Now sharpedo is a shark and garchomp is a land shark, so what this brings into question is does evolution (the Darwin kind) exist in the Pokemon world? Did sharpedo and garchomp share some common ancestor, and then developed differently or is the star and color just a similar feature (I find this hard to believe). Obviously fossil Pokemon existed in the past but no longer do, but do you really think that they evolved into some of the species today? My thoughts have mostly been that all Pokemon were just created (not necessarily at the same time), however the similarities present in a shark and a land-shark Pokemon are too much for me to ignore. What do all of you think? Is Darwinian evolution present in the Pokemon universe or not? There seems to be evidence for and against either way.

(Also, after taking a hiatus from smogon I seem to have forgotten how to properly post images in a hideable tab, but I'll try to refigure it out and edit them in later)

 

[stage7_4]

Recently I was looking up some statistics and move pools for various Pokemon on bulbapedia when I came upon crawdaunt, which reminded me of something. It was the similarity of the pattern on sharpedo, garchomp, and, to a lesser degree, crawdaunt. They all have a very similar yellow star-like pattern on their faces. Now sharpedo is a shark and garchomp is a land shark, so what this brings into question is does evolution (the Darwin kind) exist in the Pokemon world? Did sharpedo and garchomp share some common ancestor, and then developed differently or is the star and color just a similar feature (I find this hard to believe). Obviously fossil Pokemon existed in the past but no longer do, but do you really think that they evolved into some of the species today? My thoughts have mostly been that all Pokemon were just created (not necessarily at the same time), however the similarities present in a shark and a land-shark Pokemon are too much for me to ignore. What do all of you think? Is Darwinian evolution present in the Pokemon universe or not? There seems to be evidence for and against either way.

(Also, after taking a hiatus from smogon I seem to have forgotten how to properly post images in a hideable tab, but I'll try to refigure it out and edit them in later)

There's actually some relevance to that, just not what you're thinking of.

For Crawdaunt and Sharpedo, according to their bulbapedia entries, Crawdaunt might be displaying some Batesian Mimicry. For the non-science buffs, this is when one completely separate species developed traits to mimic another, usually to fool predators into thinking it's something more dangerous (like eye-patterns on moths)

like these snakes for example

Okay everybody, which is the harmless milk snake and which is the venomous coral snake?

So if you look closely at Crawdaunt's markings it's not actually weird clown lips...

best shot of crawdaunt's front

If the red edges are teeth and the blue is the back of the throat, it kind of looks like an open jaw of a shark doesn't it?

more lobsters

Also thank god the clown lips aren't it's actual lips.

As for Garchomp and Sharpedo, while it could suggest they share a common ancestor, I think it's more an expression of the common themes of their designs, Sharpedo being a shark-torpedo while Garchomp is a dragon/theropod/shark/jet plane (the common element being sharks and jets/missiles/torpedoes).

Wait a second, sharks and jets... sharks and jets...

oh my god, could it be?!

When you're jet you're a jet all the way from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day

 

[Preved Medved]

Recently I was looking up some statistics and move pools for various Pokemon on bulbapedia when I came upon crawdaunt, which reminded me of something. It was the similarity of the pattern on sharpedo, garchomp, and, to a lesser degree, crawdaunt. They all have a very similar yellow star-like pattern on their faces. Now sharpedo is a shark and garchomp is a land shark, so what this brings into question is does evolution (the Darwin kind) exist in the Pokemon world? Did sharpedo and garchomp share some common ancestor, and then developed differently or is the star and color just a similar feature (I find this hard to believe).

I think the star pattern is a result of convergent evolution.Star pokemon are psychic type,so the star attracts ghost types.Ghost types are easy prey for all three.(Sharpedo and Crawdaunt have STAB,Garchonp learns Crunch naturally and is strong).The star can also attract electric types to Garchomp.

It's like this

 

[WaffleTitan]

There's actually some relevance to that, just not what you're thinking of.

For Crawdaunt and Sharpedo, according to their bulbapedia entries, Crawdaunt might be displaying some Batesian Mimicry. For the non-science buffs, this is when one completely separate species developed traits to mimic another, usually to fool predators into thinking it's something more dangerous (like eye-patterns on moths)

like these snakes for example

Okay everybody, which is the harmless milk snake and which is the venomous coral snake?

So if you look closely at Crawdaunt's markings it's not actually weird clown lips...

best shot of crawdaunt's front

If the red edges are teeth and the blue is the back of the throat, it kind of looks like an open jaw of a shark doesn't it?

more lobsters

Also thank god the clown lips aren't it's actual lips.

As for Garchomp and Sharpedo, while it could suggest they share a common ancestor, I think it's more an expression of the common themes of their designs, Sharpedo being a shark-torpedo while Garchomp is a dragon/theropod/shark/jet plane (the common element being sharks and jets/missiles/torpedoes).

Wait a second, sharks and jets... sharks and jets...

oh my god, could it be?!

When you're jet you're a jet all the way from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day

Yes, I am aware of the batesian mimicry, I only mentioned crawdaunt because it's pattern reminded me of sharpedo, which in turn made me think about garchomp and how the two may be related because of the star on their noses.

 

[stage7_4]

Well if we are all going to be detail sticklers here...

It's not a star, it's a cross or "X". And it's closer to the forehead or dorsal fin than on the nose.

Even with Mega Sharpedo it's still not a star like Garchomp's, but a double cross

And if I really REALLY want to be a jerk about all this, [Mega] Garchomp's "star" is 6 pointed

Mega Garchomp, but it doesn't change between evolutions. Edit*:Garchomp's is an inverted 5-point star.

 

[WaffleTitan]

Well if we are all going to be detail sticklers here...

It's not a star, it's a cross or "X". And it's closer to the forehead or dorsal fin than on the nose.

Even with Mega Sharpedo it's still not a star like Garchomp's, but a double cross
View attachment 60463

And if I really REALLY want to be a jerk about all this, Garchomp's "star" is 6 pointed

Mega Garchomp, but it doesn't change between evolutions.

Haha, don't worry about being a stickler. We need them sometimes.

You are right, the pattern is not identical but it still does seem like a but of a motif to me. And regardless, my question is more of if evolution (not the level up kind) exists in Pokemon.

Ps. Since we're being sticklers, I have to point out that mega garchomp has a six pointed star, garchomp has a five pointed one... Sorry lol

 

[stage7_4]

Haha, don't worry about being a stickler. We need them sometimes.

You are right, the pattern is not identical but it still does seem like a but of a motif to me. And regardless, my question is more of if evolution (not the level up kind) exists in Pokemon.

Ps. Since we're being sticklers, I have to point out that mega garchomp has a six pointed star, garchomp has a five pointed one... Sorry lol

You have no idea how hard it's been to find an official artwork shot of garchomp's head from the front. No idea. Mega Garchomp at least stares straight at the screen for his mega evolution pose, but regular Garchomp? Eh.

The best I got is his pokemon amie vids

That clearly show that you are right, Garchomp(non-mega) has a five pointed inverted star pattern (two on top, two lower sides, one center bottom). Which is really really hard to tell when he likes to pose from the side.

Due to this and the fact that the anime likes to take... liberties...

...with the design, I honestly couldn't tell how many points that star had for sure.

But you're right. My bad.

In terms of evolution, the differing patterns is why I brought Batesian Mimicry up in the first place, since you're right that the patterns are similar but not the same, just like how the real mimic's do it, so less common ancestor and more evolved to look like one another. Still evolution though.

But then again there are a lot of batesian mimics that do share common ancestors (like the snake example I used) so a little from column A, a little from column B?

Now whether TRUE evolution exists in pokemon (and not the incorrectly named Metamorphosis they call evolution), I think fossil pokemon and Salamance suggest it exists, but it is a topic of debate between those that support Prof. Rowan's Origin of Pokespecies and the Church of Arceus.

 

[Pikachu315111]

So I got a theory, I call it "Immortal Shauna". It's an old theory I had and I was reminded of it as we started a discussion on the XY rivals.

So at the end of the Flare storyline Lysandre fired the Ultimate Weapon and it destroyed the Flare HQ just as the player, Calem/Serena, and Shauna escapes. A plot point is that the Ultimate Weapon makes those near it immortal, in X it's mentioned that if Lysandre lived through the HQ collapse he would now be immortal under the rubble, and Sycamore told us in front of the Anistar Sundial that we absorbed some of the blast's radiation. HOWEVER Sycamore than said that our Mega Bracelet absorbed the energy, which I always took meaning we were not affected by it. Thus, we the player aren't immortal. But what about Calem/Serena and Shauna? Well soon after Calem/Serena gets their own Mega Bracelet so it could be that would start absorbing the radiation from their body. But Shauna doesn't, she has nothing to absorb the immortality radiation! And assuming everyone in Geosenge City evacuated/force out when the Ultimate Weapon arose, she could be the sole new immortal.

But on the other hand, they were a fair bit away from the blast so they didn't get a heap of the radiation like AZ and Lysandre did. So it could be that maybe she (and maybe the player and Calem/Serena) aren't immortal but just had their lives extended (of course that could be anywher between a few more years, doubling their lifespan, centuries, and so on).

 

[WaffleTitan]

So I got a theory, I call it "Immortal Shauna". It's an old theory I had and I was reminded of it as we started a discussion on the XY rivals.

So at the end of the Flare storyline Lysandre fired the Ultimate Weapon and it destroyed the Flare HQ just as the player, Calem/Serena, and Shauna escapes. A plot point is that the Ultimate Weapon makes those near it immortal, in X it's mentioned that if Lysandre lived through the HQ collapse he would now be immortal under the rubble, and Sycamore told us in front of the Anistar Sundial that we absorbed some of the blast's radiation. HOWEVER Sycamore than said that our Mega Bracelet absorbed the energy, which I always took meaning we were not affected by it. Thus, we the player aren't immortal. But what about Calem/Serena and Shauna? Well soon after Calem/Serena gets their own Mega Bracelet so it could be that would start absorbing the radiation from their body. But Shauna doesn't, she has nothing to absorb the immortality radiation! And assuming everyone in Geosenge City evacuated/force out when the Ultimate Weapon arose, she could be the sole new immortal.

But on the other hand, they were a fair bit away from the blast so they didn't get a heap of the radiation like AZ and Lysandre did. So it could be that maybe she (and maybe the player and Calem/Serena) aren't immortal but just had their lives extended (of course that could be anywher between a few more years, doubling their lifespan, centuries, and so on).

I imagine that they only absorbed enough to extend their lives maybe a few years, if at all. Then again, for all intents and purposes, all characters in-game are technically immortal anyway. But disregarding that, I assume the effects would be negligible. I'm not sure it could be proven either way... Unless there was a sequel.

 

[jordanthejq12]

Meanwhile you have the existence of Y, in which Lysandre and friends are outright killed by the blast. That can't be healthy for the protagonists, right?

 

[Norne]

Thanks for pointing the Y version side, yes in there the blast is fatal.

 

[Lady Vader]

Meanwhile you have the existence of Y, in which Lysandre and friends are outright killed by the blast. That can't be healthy for the protagonists, right?

I think this proves that Shauna wouldn't be immortal since everyone was in the same position in both realities when the weapon fired.