Implicating helioptile → lizard
Link to implication

Reason:

Lizard type pokemon, and I can't find any examples of this one being shown differently.

Same as other thread, I think that it should just stay helioptile. We don't call platypuses hybrid duck/beaver creatures just because they look like it, should we do differently for pokemon? I would say no, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Tokaido said:
Same as other thread, I think that it should just stay helioptile. We don't call platypuses hybrid duck/beaver creatures just because they look like it, should we do differently for pokemon? I would say no, but perhaps I'm wrong.

How about things like scalie or mammal? Those don't really mean anything in terms of species.

Jugofthat said:
How about things like scalie or mammal? Those don't really mean anything in terms of species.

Yeah, that may work. I just don't want to sit through tagging them all manually so an implication would help lots.
Might need to do so anyways, though, if people decide to not tag them and are against the implication.

Jugofthat said:
How about things like scalie or mammal? Those don't really mean anything in terms of species.

Mammal still wouldn't technically work as they lay eggs.

Ko-san said:
Mammal still wouldn't technically work as they lay eggs.

So do platypodes and echidnas, and they're mammals.
(I learned something new today: Platypus is Greek, not Latin, and gets pluralized differently)

Heck, even non-platypus/echidna mammals still have eggs, they're simply internal. External eggs are basically just an evolutionary tactic to prevent the mother from getting overly hungry for the entire gestation period, allowing them to simply store excess food around the embryo for it to feed off of until it hatches.
Conversely, internal eggs are an evolutionary tactic to lessen the odds of the embryo being harmed, since the mother is always right there with them to defend them. Most mammals are actually evolved to be able to handle themselves shortly after birth, too, meaning that there's hardly any point of defenselessness.
(Stupid human species defying all Darwinism logic)

Can't tag helioptile as a scalie, the do human characters than look like pokemon, non-anthro.

Halite said:
Can't tag helioptile as a scalie, the do human characters than look like pokemon, non-anthro.

Aren't humans dressed up as lizards tagged as scalie?

Furrin_Gok said:
Aren't humans dressed up as lizards tagged as scalie?

No, also, I'm not talking about being dressed up.
Something like:
post #509539

Halite said:
No, also, I'm not talking about being dressed up.
Something like:
post #509539

...Heh, that's tagged "canine."

Denied: because it's been decided that implicating pokemon to other species isn't a good idea. They are their own species. Despite often being inspired by real life species, or a mix of them, the resemblance isn't always very strong. Even when a feral version is similar enough to another real life species, implicating them would cause tagging problems whenever a pokemon was being drawn as a different species or as a human. Pokemon tags are also unique from most other species tags, because they are both a name and a species.

Now, the wikis for them can include a link to the pokemon or real life species that's similar-ish in the "see also" section, as a related tag. But we've found that creating actual implications between them and a real life species that's sorta-similar just doesn't work very well in practice because pokemon tags just function a little differently to other species tags.