So, I've uploaded a few pokemon pictures lately and I've had some trouble tagging things. This has been kinda ruminating around in my head for a while...

I've seen several people ask things like "is pokemonX anthro or feral?" and confusion over how to tag pokemon from a taxonomy perspective.

The rule, for the curious:

October 18th: Since it has come up recently: Please do not tag Pokémon or Digimon as their real world counterparts, but only as the family. Eg persian is not a cat but a feline, renamon is not a fox but a canine, etc.

So, my goal here is to put together a list of everything to answer these questions. :) At least in as much as a character drawn to canon proportions and design. Obviously, things will vary by the individual artist, but I'm hoping to give people a 'starting point.' :)

Anyway! I am not declaring these to be the correct answers! Just my best guesses. Please help me fill in empty spaces, or change and adjust information as needed!

I've only listed 15 to start with--I don't have a ton of time today and it seems easier to do this in bursts, both as far as my effort and yours both go. :) Also, if people think it's an awful idea, I'd rather not waste my time :P

It also just occurred to me that editing this would probably be easier on the wiki than a forum post, but I'd rather have an admin's blessing before I make a wikipage for this.

But, onward:

Also, ideally, everything is a link, but I am lazy today.

...I would also like to propose also setting up some aliases to help non-pokemaniacs tag pokemon. A lot of artists only write the pokedex number on their pictures, so it might be helpful if people could tag, say pkmn001, and get bulbasaur. But that's a lot of aliasing work...!

Okay yeah, I'm done for now. <3

Since anthro/feral tagging is based on the real life counterparts, that makes Pokemon such as Blastoise, Lucario, Delphox etc anthro. And Butterfree seems clearly anthro to me: biped butterfly with hands. But I've never been sure about what to do with non-pokemorph Charmander evo line.

Dragon-like creatures are always tough to fit in feral/anthro. There aren't many good indicators, except for shoulders and neck. Example:
post #1425296 post #1451940

Right one is more anthro than the one on the left. But I don't know where exactly they fall on the scale. I'd tag the right one as anthro, and... not sure about the other one. I'm inclined to say feral, but generally I just leave those untagged.

And there's a lot of pokemon species that are ambiguous like that. Such as the ones that abadbird listed in the other thread: mienshao, chespin, floatzel... Most of those need to be tagged case-by-case, so I'm not sure that it's possible to make guidelines for the forms.

Edit:
Oh, and technically these would be pupa, though we have no tags for that:

Cocoon is the casing (typically silk), which those lack.

Here's my take on the next 15:

Meh. That started easy, then got tough quickly. Pikachu don't look much like rodents to me, despite being called 'Mouse' pokemon. And sandshrew look more like pangolin than shrews...

(slightly out of order because reasons)

And there's a lot of pokemon species that are ambiguous like that. Such as the ones that abadbird listed in the other thread: mienshao, chespin, floatzel... Most of those need to be tagged case-by-case, so I'm not sure that it's possible to make guidelines for the forms.

Well, we can judge the original canon form. The idea's a bit more about giving people a baseline... y'know, kinda a "Pikachu, as drawn by nintendo, we considered to be feral".. a place to start, rahter than a declaration.

Genjar said:
Since anthro/feral tagging is based on the real life counterparts, that makes Pokemon such as Blastoise, Lucario, Delphox etc anthro. And Butterfree seems clearly anthro to me: biped butterfly with hands.

Sure, but there's no real torso definition. or arms. or legs. ... I'd say maybe.. semi-anthro. Or, whatever pikachu is.

But I've never been sure about what to do with non-pokemorph Charmander evo line.

Dragon-like creatures are always tough to fit in feral/anthro. There aren't many good indicators, except for shoulders and neck. Example:
post #1425296 post #1451940

Right one is more anthro than the one on the left. But I don't know where exactly they fall on the scale. I'd tag the right one as anthro, and... not sure about the other one. I'm inclined to say feral, but generally I just leave those untagged.

I'd agree with you-- feral, then anthro. It can be pretty tricky though.

hmm.. especially looking at charizard more-- his arms (which also says something. I have no hesitation calling those arms) are rather skinny, suggesting he rarely, if ever, uses them for anything like bearing his .. uh... canon says 200lbs, but he's very wide, so let's say 300, and that's not even counting the tail...) ... arms not used for beating weight ever if often. Those are tools for manipulating objects. .... I'm over thinking this, aren't I?

wiki says :

Anthros are usually bipedal and have human-like arms and feet, but some may use a tail for locomotion. ... In borderline cases between feral and anthro, if the character couldn't pass off as a feral animal, it should be tagged as anthro. Use the overall body shape and posture when determining which tag is more appropriate.

Hm.

Well, he's bipedal--but so are ostriches, kangaroos and lotsa other things.
Body shape? Well, not by canon. He's got more of a fat triangle shape, rather than a humanoid shape, with a wide amount of space between his thighs. couldn't push them together if he tried.

Arms are not especially humanoid--but are more humanoid then 'feral'

...I think I'd call charizard feral more often than not.

Of course, by my arguement, the rest of the char-line is feral as is the squirtle line... but, charmeleon is pretty close to anthro? he's kind oval in body shape.

Chibi things count as anthro, and a charmeleon isn't that really... different than a chibi character

hmm..

See, this is why I think it needs discussing :)

Edit:
Oh, and technically these would be pupa, though we have no tags for that:

Cocoon is the casing (typically silk), which those lack.

Well, technically...

Pupa are the stage between larva and adult. A Chrysalis is generally butterflies-only: the caterpillar sheds it's skin and under it is a much harder skin called a chrysalis. A cocoon is a silk casing that the larva spins around itself before it turns into a pupa.

So... in all technicality, a metapod--growing into a butterfly/free would be a chrysalis, while the kakuna... well, if you go to the page for 'pupa' on wikipedia, the top image is basically kakuna's RL counterpart. XD

*quietly corrects to Raticate* <3

I'd say feral-- he's basically a big hamster/rat/thing, and they spend a lot of time on hind legs, using their forepaws for stuff.

Also, fangs? what about buckteeth? Hmm.. maybe not quite right either...

Meh. That started easy, then got tough quickly. Pikachu don't look much like rodents to me, despite being called 'Mouse' pokemon. And sandshrew look more like pangolin than shrews...

I know, right? I keep running into this problem when I upload pokemon, haha.

I'd say what whatever pikachu is, is what radicate is. they have roughly the same body type and structure.. and sandshrew and sandslash are pretty similar too.

Sandshrew resembles an armadillo... sandslash is all kinds of pangolin.

Pangolins are off in their own little branch of the tree of life-- not really closely related to anything. Ditto armadillos (really, nearest branches are anteaters and sloths.. So nope.

Nidoran/a also have buckteeth, claw_digits ... horn, maybe?... I'd say they're both feral, not semi-anthro. Looks like she does some kinda mouse-like 'sit on haunches and use front paws' thang.

... ... OH! Nidoran♀/♂ are rodents. They have buckteeth, and that kinda suggests that they have growing incisors. Of course.. that might be me stretching.

anyway... Fifteen more!

Nidoqueen/king has the same charizard problem.

for Clefairy/jigglypuff, I wanna say I remember a tag for round character but I have NO idea what it was.

SnowWolf said:
Sure, but there's no real torso definition. or arms. or legs. ... I'd say maybe.. semi-anthro. Or, whatever pikachu is.

The base form is a butterfly, and Butterfree couldn't possibly pass off as a feral one, since it's biped and has hands. More anthro than feral, I'd say.

hmm.. especially looking at charizard more--

So 'feral' for the canon Charizard? I concur. Though it is very close to the feral/anthro divide, doesn't require major changes to push it into anthro.

Chibi things count as anthro, and a charmeleon isn't that really... different than a chibi character

hmm..

See, this is why I think it needs discussing :)

I've thought about those for a couple of years, still haven't figured out where ones such as Charmeleon and Mienshao should fit in. So I don't have much to contribute.

Pupa are the stage between larva and adult. A Chrysalis is generally butterflies-only: the caterpillar sheds it's skin and under it is a much harder skin called a chrysalis. A cocoon is a silk casing that the larva spins around itself before it turns into a pupa.

Chrysalis is to pupa as caterpillar is to larva. Sure, butterfly pupa is called chrysalis, but it's still a pupa. Been photographing Lepidoptera for decades, couldn't identify either of those Pokemon as chrysalides by twys. But they are clearly pupa.

I'd say feral-- he's basically a big hamster/rat/thing, and they spend a lot of time on hind legs, using their forepaws for stuff.

Re: Raticade - Yep, close enough.

Nidoran/a also have buckteeth, claw_digits ... horn, maybe?... I'd say they're both feral, not semi-anthro. Looks like she does some kinda mouse-like 'sit on haunches and use front paws' thang.

... ... OH! Nidoran♀/♂ are rodents. They have buckteeth, and that kinda suggests that they have growing incisors. Of course.. that might be me stretching.

I dunno, I don't really see that: no tail at all. I'd almost think that they're based on Al-mi'raj (horn, teeth, ears, poison), but that'd be so obscure that it's probably just a coincidence.

for Clefairy/jigglypuff, I wanna say I remember a tag for round character but I have NO idea what it was.

Waddling_head (named after TVTropes), made specifically for that body type. So those are easy to tag, at least.

anyway... Fifteen more!

Yeah, feral bat seems close enough for Zubat.
Golbat is also clearly based on bat, but the form might be taggable as waddling_head: basic feet, Pacman-like body...

Nidoqueen/king has the same charizard problem.

Tough to determine from some poses, but the build is dinosaur-like in the official art. I'd go with feral for the canon form.

After I made my post about this in the other thread, I basically came to the same conclusion: ID'ing all on-model pokemon body types would be very instructive and helpful. Simply making the effort helps isolate easier cases from troublesome cases. This is something that needs to happen if we're ever going to pin down these body type classifications, which is my main concern for now.

I recommend putting this work in a publicly editable Google Sheets document. This link should take you to the right place. Egh, I copied the tables in this thread so far, the list of Pokemon off bulbapedia, and made a Sheet

HERE]

I think the ideal finished product would use official art in the table/whatever as reference. Someone would have to spend... a week (?) collecting adequate reference art. I don't know where all that would be hosted--I don't think E621 thumbs are adequate unless we rip a full set of official reference art--and I don't know how the final formatting should look. But reference art is a must.

For Charizard/dragons/scalies, I generally lean toward anthro if the characters seems comfortable and effective walking on two legs, especially if they have hands. But that logic crumbles with small bipedal Pokemon. Technically, a scaled dragon that walks on two legs is already an anthropomorphized reptile, right? Later, I might try classifying the first 50 pokemon's body types to show where I stand.

abadbird said:
I think the ideal finished product would use official art in the table/whatever as reference. Someone would have to spend... a week (?) collecting adequate reference art.

Official art can be downloaded as a pack from Veekun. The Dream World art pack is especially nice, since it's scalable. ...but unfortunately it lacks the newer generations.

Genjar said:
The base form is a butterfly, and Butterfree couldn't possibly pass off as a feral one, since it's biped and has hands. More anthro than feral, I'd say.

It's not really human-shaped though. When I imagine Butterfree walking, it has more in common with waddling_head than anthro.

I mean, semi-anthro at best.

So 'feral' for the canon Charizard? I concur. Though it is very close to the feral/anthro divide, doesn't require major changes to push it into anthro.

I dunno. The answer is--he's not really either. semi-anthro? does.. does that apply? I'm REALLY fuzzy on what semi anthro is supsoed to be precisely.

I've thought about those for a couple of years, still haven't figured out where ones such as Charmeleon and Mienshao should fit in. So I don't have much to contribute.

I'd say anthro... but..

Chrysalis is to pupa as caterpillar is to larva. Sure, butterfly pupa is called chrysalis, but it's still a pupa. Been photographing Lepidoptera for decades, couldn't identify either of those Pokemon as chrysalides by twys. But they are clearly pupa.

I'll bow to you are your butterknowledge then :)

I dunno, I don't really see that: no tail at all. I'd almost think that they're based on Al-mi'raj (horn, teeth, ears, poison), but that'd be so obscure that it's probably just a coincidence.

That's pretty awesome :D I'd never head of those.

That said, rodents aren't only rats and mice. Rodents are also: squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils and capybaras. Like, 40% of mammals are rodents.

that said.. SHOULD? they be tagged as rodent? I dunno. I think that they share a lot of traits with rodents and are meant to look like a rodent of some sort... but should they be tagged as rodent?

Obviously, not everything should have an 'animal family'... . clefairy, for example, isn't any animal type. Maybe that's the case with Nidoran too.

Waddling_head (named after TVTropes), made specifically for that body type. So those are easy to tag, at least.
Yeah, feral bat seems close enough for Zubat.
Golbat is also clearly based on bat, but the form might be taggable as waddling_head: basic feet, Pacman-like body...

Y'know, I agree. Ah.. wait, there are canon images of closed-mouth golbats: here

I think... I dunno.

Tough to determine from some poses, but the build is dinosaur-like in the official art. I'd go with feral for the canon form.

abadbird said:
For Charizard/dragons/scalies, I generally lean toward anthro if the characters seems comfortable and effective walking on two legs, especially if they have hands. But that logic crumbles with small bipedal Pokemon. Technically, a scaled dragon that walks on two legs is already an anthropomorphized reptile, right?

Maybe we should define what anthro is or isn't.

I mean, if 'anthro' is walking on 2 legs, then is a kangaroo anthro? reptiles already regularly walk around on 2 legs. it's a common lizard thing (note: The 'thing' ling is a youtube video and shows someone handling a lizard in a way that scares them and makes them run away. He's not vicious, but if you're sensitive to any sort of potential abuse, he's not really treating his animal with respect...) ... not to mention, the dinosaurs.

I mean.. the "right" answer would be the creation of chibi_body and and something for "anthro, but with some heavy feral features. I mean.. would that be semi-anthro?

Are charizard, charmeleon etc 'semi anthro'?

After I made my post about this in the other thread, I basically came to the same conclusion: ID'ing all on-model pokemon body types would be very instructive and helpful. Simply making the effort helps isolate easier cases from troublesome cases. This is something that needs to happen if we're ever going to pin down these body type classifications, which is my main concern for now.

I recommend putting this work in a publicly editable Google Sheets document. This link should take you to the right place. Egh, I copied the tables in this thread so far, the list of Pokemon off bulbapedia, and made a Sheet

HERE]

I think the ideal finished product would use official art in the table/whatever as reference. Someone would have to spend... a week (?) collecting adequate reference art. I don't know where all that would be hosted--I don't think E621 thumbs are adequate unless we rip a full set of official reference art--and I don't know how the final formatting should look. But reference art is a must.

you and I are totally on the same page and I love that :)

Google sheets is a great idea :) Thanks!!

AS for formatting... my thought would be a table like we were using before:

Maybe something like that. But not exactly. Starting point and all.

Genjar said:
Official art can be downloaded as a pack from Veekun. The Dream World art pack is especially nice, since it's scalable. ...but unfortunately it lacks the newer generations.

Hmmmm....

The Pokémon Dream World was a browser-based massively single-player online game that connected to Pokémon Black and White and Pokémon Black 2 and White 2. ... The Dream World was shut down on January 14, 2014, alongside all other services for Generation V games.

So, we'll never get more dream world images... Scalable is nice! But e621, to me knowledge, doesn't support SVG files, so we'd have to do more work per image.

I kinda like the sugimori images.

Comparisons: No. 003 No. 032

I feel like the sugimori images are more interesting to look at... and there will always be more produced as there are more pokemon made.

I mean.. I admit, I don't like the dream world art style--it reminds me a lot of the... 90's cash-grab coloring book clip art. It sends me right back to being a kid, looking around in the store at all the pokemon merchandise that uses the exact same 3 images.

So, my vote's for the sugimori images.

Some scattered thoughts:

We should probably also include alolan variants as they COULD be different, as well as mega variants. (mega alakazam, for example, has a beard.)

Since we have a google sheet now (thank you again abadboy!) We should probably establish some rules of thumb for discussion on this...

like... considering the sheer scope of this, we should probably use the built in commenting system to comment on specific ideas.

Just in case, here's how that works -- click on any cell and right click. Look for 'insert comment and it'll give you a little box that allows you to comment. There will be a tiny yellow mark in the corner of that cell, and if you hover over that cell, any connects will become visible. If you have Opinions Regarding Comments, you can click on the popped up box, and there's a reply feature. Boom.

In the upper right corner, there's a "comments" button that, I believe will show you all the comments made. Including any that have been resolved. Resolving a comment means that it will be deleted (mostly) and no little yellow mark will display. So, probably shouldn't do that until we reach a consensus.

we should... probably focus on this in sections.

like: keep filling out more cells/pokemon, but limit major conversation about "No, Psyduck's not an avian, are you crazy"? to sectiosn of pokemon--like 50 at a time or something, that way we're not over whelmed by conversation all over the place.

Or something. i don't know. my 2 cents.

SnowWolf said:
Maybe we should define what anthro is or isn't.

That's all I want.

I mean, if 'anthro' is walking on 2 legs, then is a kangaroo anthro? reptiles already regularly walk around on 2 legs. it's a common lizard thing (note: The 'thing' ling is a youtube video and shows someone handling a lizard in a way that scares them and makes them run away. He's not vicious, but if you're sensitive to any sort of potential abuse, he's not really treating his animal with respect...) ... not to mention, the dinosaurs.

One thing anthros aren't are real animals, so a faithfully depicted kangaroo should never be anthro. All real animals drawn roughly as they appear in nature should be feral. However, start changing the kangaroo's joints to look more like a human's and that character is probably an anthro.

Dinosaurs, particularly raptors, are harder to classify. Should they be treated the same as pokemon (i.e., as a fictitious species) or as true ferals? I think a safe default is to assume they are all ferals but to then look hard for anthro features that disqualify a given character as feral. Fortunately, a lot on the first page of raptor are obviously anthros.

I don't think these have enough positively anthro features to disqualify them as ferals, so they should be tagged feral:

post #1429605 post #1412220 post #1420313

I dunno. The answer is--he's not really either. semi-anthro? does.. does that apply? I'm REALLY fuzzy on what semi anthro is supsoed to be precisely.

I mean.. the "right" answer would be the creation of chibi_body and and something for "anthro, but with some heavy feral features. I mean.. would that be semi-anthro?

I discussed my thoughts on that (and other stuff) in forum #250097. I probably said enough in there.

Are charizard, charmeleon etc 'semi anthro'?

Not especially, for me, but I can see how they might seem so to others. Depends on the art and the viewer.

Charmeleon has a strongly anthro body type. Snout, claws, and scalie skin keep it from being humanoid.

I put Charizard in the winged dragon/scalie anthro bucket. That type of character has to look like something, have some identity, because that is a type of anthro character, and so I count Charizard as one of them. There's really not much difference between pool #3255 and a size_difference human_on_anthro dragon post. Charizard's belly, very wide pelvis, and long neck are its more unique dragon features, but none of those are exclusively feral features (almost nothing is, except most quadrupeds -taur). Charizard's strongest claim to feral is canon affiliation.

etheross ~scalie ~dragon has some similar challenging dragon posts. In my book, useful, humanoid-looking arms should disqualify a character from feral.

Double-posting for formatting...

I guess I wake up by ID'ing 151 pokemon's body types. Okay.

EVERYTHING BASED ON OFFICIAL ART!!!

https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokedex/ images were used for reference.

Does anything here seem very wrong or not make sense?

abadbird said:
I guess I wake up by ID'ing 151 pokemon's body types. Okay.
...
Does anything here seem very wrong or not make sense?

Some Pokemon are very hard to pigeonhole, but I agree with most of your choices. Hadn't thought of including Kakuna/Metapod in feral, but that actually makes perfect sense.

There's a few that might need a second look:
- Golem. Definitely mineral_fauna, but nothing about it is a perfect match for humanoid. The head shape is reptilian, almost snake-like, no humanoid hands or feet, and the posture (not to mention the body) are non-human. Not a good fit for any category, maybe tagging it as mineral_fauna would suffice.
- Porygon. Unconventional usage of glitch, since those creatures tend to be distorted in some way. But I can kind of see how Porygon could fit there, considering its appearance.
- Abra. I have no idea what is based on (if anything), but Abra looks like some kind of animal to me. So I'd go with anthro instead of humanoid for that one.
- Electrabuzz. Although it's not clearly based on any real animal, the tail and (shallow) snout make it look anthroish to me. As I see it, the clearest division between humanoid and anthro are the facial structure and the tail (except for demons and monster girls, humanoids tend to lack a tail).

Though that brings up the problem with Snorlax. It lacks a tail and a snout, so is it actually humanoid instead of anthro...? I'm not sure how much weight should be put on animal-like ears when tagging anthro/humanoid. The most important distinction between humanoid and anthro is that the latter are animal-like, while the former aren't. Generally ears alone (as in animal_humanoid) aren't enough to make something anthro instead of humanoid.

And putting Pikachu and Sandshrew in separate categories still seems a bit iffy to me. That'd mean that Pikachu x Sandshrew would end up tagged as bestiality (because of anthro_on_feral), and I just don't see that.. It's kind of annoying that the mascot of the series is so hard to tag.

I"m having a really busy end of week *sigh* And replying here takes a lot of mental energy. I"ll get to the replies and looking over abadbird's agoodpokemonlist in the next little bit (read: anywhere from a few hours to a few days)

I did have a thought a few moments ago though.

the quadruped tag exists. There are approximately 3500 posts tagged with it. The biped tag also exists, with 15508 posts

Obviously some pokemon are clearly feral/anthro... but maybe adding in quad/biped tags will help?

I mean.. some of those anthros might be better described as feral bipeds..? Like Sandshrew or Sandslash... maybe that would be more 'accurate' than anthro?

And putting Pikachu and Sandshrew in separate categories still seems a bit iffy to me. That'd mean that Pikachu x Sandshrew would end up tagged as bestiality (because of anthro_on_feral), and I just don't see that.. It's kind of annoying that the mascot of the series is so hard to tag.

That is one of the reasons why I brought this up. I don't think people searching bestiality want to see pokemon-only posts, to say nothing of tagging on-model pokemon as anthro at all.

A compromise might be to move everything I deemed anthro with low search relevance to feral, even if they're really not. That's Mew, Butterfree, Raichu, Sandshrew, Sandslash, Psyduck, Slowbro, and Lickitung. Except I know that wouldn't be enough... every small pokemon would need to be feral to satisfy everyone, and I don't like that. Too much inconsistency. Why should small vs medium body size matter? Why should anthro exclude some anthropomorphized animals?

SnowWolf said:
I"m having a really busy end of week *sigh* And replying here takes a lot of mental energy. I"ll get to the replies and looking over abadbird's agoodpokemonlist in the next little bit (read: anywhere from a few hours to a few days)

Sounds familiar. I can post in the forums or tag. I really can't do both...

I did have a thought a few moments ago though.

the quadruped tag exists. There are approximately 3500 posts tagged with it. The biped tag also exists, with 15508 posts

Obviously some pokemon are clearly feral/anthro... but maybe adding in quad/biped tags will help?

I had posted something like that at some point... probably complaining about feral in the same breath.

I mean.. some of those anthros might be better described as feral bipeds..? Like Sandshrew or Sandslash... maybe that would be more 'accurate' than anthro?

Well, I'm halfway through Gen2, and it feels harder than Gen1. To better keep track of things, I started yet another list for pokemon that switch between biped and quadruped.

Ahah. I wish this forum had a better way to quote posts. I had a reply written, but it got completely mangled because of multiple sections, tables, and quotes. And then I ended up accidentally erasing most of it.

...lemme see if I can remember some of it.

* Porygon: fits well enough in glitch since we have no other tag for digital creatures, but Porygon2 will be tougher to fit anywhere. We might need a digital_creature tag, though I suspect that it'd get mistagged for Digimon, etc.

* I'd rather move Pikachu to anthro than move obvious anthros such as Mew to feral. Pokemon getting tagged as bestiality will remain a problem in any case, since humanoid x feral pokemon pairs will get tagged as such regardless.

* One thing to note about bipedalism: even though there are feral animals that naturally stand on two feet, most of them are unable to walk bipedally. For example, kangaroos and some birds hop instead of walking. There are lizards that run on two feet, but otherwise move on four. Many mammals squat on two feet while eating or stand up to look around, but again, usually move on four. So I'd propose this: if the creature looks like it walks on two feet (such as Pichu and Mienshao), it's anthro. (*With some exceptions, including feral birds and dinosaurs).

I had played all of Gen 1 and 2, and I knew all those pokemon. I played some of Gen 3, and I don't remember at least 50 of its pokemon at all. I only know Gen4 from furry, and I had played halfway through Pokemon White (Gen5) and then dropped it. Going into uncharted territory.