Talk:Convergent species

Contents

Hide

Close table of contents

• (Return to top)
• Terminology
• More Pokémon like that?
• Usage
• Name change
• "Ecologically similar"

Contents

Terminology

If Poltchageist is the only one that has been officially called "ecologically similar" and is also the only one that actually is ecologically similar (ghosts that possess tea, live in houses, and eat people's life force), then it doesn't seem to me like the term can be extrapolated to Wiglett and Toedscool, and with no official term referring to the category in general, it would make more sense to use "convergent". Pikcahu (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Convergent" is a misnomer (they aren't filling the same niches) so whatever the case, "convergent" is unlikely to be used, especially because Poltchageist is not a product of evolution.--Gwen Stacy (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Filling the same niche is not a requirement and "convergent" describes better the relation between these Pokemon.--Rocket Grunt 15:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So we should change rather instead to "Physiologically similar Pokémon" or "Phenotypically similar Pokémon". As it stands this article's name is misleading at best.Satosuke (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The current title, while imperfect, is the closest thing to an official name we have, and does qualify itself in the Origin section. It's not ideal, but I'd prefer a quasi-official descriptor over a complete fan designator. Landfish7 00:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought these would be called "Coincidental forms" because that's the word used when they were presented for the first time with Wiglett and the word "coincidence" was used three seperate times, but only when describing Wiglett. However, "Fake regional form/regional fake" makes more sense because that's how three seperate species were described.--Rocket Grunt 09:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

More Pokémon like that?

Is there something specific to know which Pokémon fits the category or not, or should we add pairs like Audino and Indeedee, and Plusle and Minun?

Kégan (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Only families described in official materials (games/websites/etc.) as such are included. Kikugi (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Usage

To clarify on my edit summary, the term "ecologically similar Pokémon" should not be inappropriately used to refer to a singular Pokémon. "Ecologically similar Pokémon" is plural, referring to a pair or pairs of Pokémon officially described as similar but completely different Pokémon. Landfish7 20:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Name change

The term "ecologically similar" feels like a failure as a name. It never caught on, and I never see it used outside of Bulbapedia. It's clunky, more of a description than an actual term, and it was only used once for a single Pokemon. Even "coincidental form" would be more official, since that's how the first revealed one was described, and the word "coincident" was used multiple separate times. But since there's no proper official category, it makes the most sense to use the name that's actually popular within the fandom: "Convergent species/Pokémon". That's the term widely used in YouTube videos, fan discussions, and posts where people share their own convergent Pokémon designs. Rocket Grunt 22:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean it's not a strong term but it is used once on a website, thats still infinitely better than a "convergent", which has..... 0 official use. Im open to exploring the terminology "coincidental adaptation" is kinda whats used in the Pokédex but that to me sounds no less clunky. 4iamking 22:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

While often misused, "ecologically similar Pokémon" seems like a totally fair way to describe the pairs of Pokémon that share similar ecological (mainly morphological) traits. With the marketing's emphasis on Pokémon ecology, such as with the World Pokémon Ecological Society, I feel it's an appropriate and fitting descriptor. It's important to remember that our goal is not to instruct people on what terms to use, but rather to inform readers on these topics as they are described in official media. While I admit that "ecologically similar Pokémon" is flimsy in that the term itself has not been used, but rather is derived from one instance referring to one specific species, I feel the term is functional and fits the official language. Moreover, in the absence of a better official term, and per BP:TITLE and current practice, moving this topic to a fan term is a nonstarter. I'd also like to note that, while this isn't a significant factor in itself, there's been some praise over how this page handles this topic and its coverage of both the official language and fan terminology.[1][2] I hesitate to compromise on the principles they refer to that we've been striving to maintain - not without very good reason. Landfish7 23:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

We have done chunky names before I think as ofifcal terms? Jacob9594 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If we're not doing an "fan" term (despite the fact that without a clear official term these are all unofficial titles anyway) then use "coincidential adaptation" or whatever since that has more "official" usage. Refusing to do so because it's "clunky" or whatever shows clear double standards, either we use the most "official" term or the term that sees the widest usage, there's no point in using a half-measure like the current title. And I'm not sure what the opinions of two random Xitter users has to do with anything, there were many who were and still are pissed about the move from "starter Pokémon" yet clearly the staff have indicated that they wouldn't consider wider fan opinion when making the policies, and if you won't do it on a term as big as "starter Pokémon", which has seen official use and continues to do so on occasion even to this day, then there's no reason to defend this flimsy title over the one that sees more usage. I'd prefer to use "convergent species" since that's the most widely used term, but if that's a nonstarter then I at least expect Bulbapedia to be consistent with their standards. Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The term Ecologically Similar has been used on Poltchageist page on scarlet and violet official website.

Here is link as proof https://scarletviolet.pokemon.com/en-us/pokemon/poltchageist/

Thus is the closest to we have an official term for this group. None of the pokededx entries mentioned similar or name terms other than ecologically different. Unless the official website of Pokemon has an official term. This is what we got. It's nice to have random users help bring up a point and figure out solutions. Jacob9594 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically Toedscool & Wiglett's Pokédex entry as well as Polchageist's website description use the words "different species" to describe it; its just that terminology is so vague but ifs we want to truly be technical, thats probably the way its described most often. 4iamking 01:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

So like “Different Species Pokémon” as an official term. Less chunky if you look at it. Jacob9594 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

...at that point it starts sounding like it could just be a list of all the different Pokémon species 🙃 4iamking 01:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

(ec)Digging into it, the wording on Poltchageist's page is "Though Ecologically Similar to Sinistea, It’s a Completely Different Pokémon". Compare to Wiglett, which says "Though It May Closely Resemble Diglett, It’s a Completely Different Pokémon", which is basically the exact same meaning and structure with slightly different wording (Toedscool does not have a page as far as I can tell). With this, it's clear that whoever wrote this clearly did not consider either to be an actual title for the grouping, if "Ecologically Similar" is official so is "Closely Resemble" (or you can reword as "Pokémon with close resemblances" or whatever). If anything, the "Completely Different Pokémon" is the consistent part that ties the two together, though I wouldn't put too much stock in that either Biblical Bambi (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

One thing annoying about Pokémon company is not always coming up with official terms. Other than those three official options. Jacob9594 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If we can agree there is no true official term, then I don't see the need to try to jam a square peg into a round hole. Alas, I don't write the rules here. Biblical Bambi (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If I may, "ecologically similar" feels more in line with traditional encyclopedic formatting. To me, anyhow. BittersweetVICTORY (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent)
Consensus isn't about popular opinion. I shared those two tweets because I think they do a good job of explaining the underlying principles we're following here. It doesn't hurt to offer other perspectives into the conversation.

As for the suggested alternative, to my knowledge, "coincidental adaptation" has not actually been used at all in any official media referring to these Pokémon. It simply refers to wording used in a single Pokédex entry (Wiglett: "Though it looks like Diglett, Wiglett is an entirely different species. The resemblance seems to be a coincidental result of environmental adaptation.") referring to the mechanism that caused them to look similar - note that it does not refer to the species themselves.

I think part of the confusion here is that "Ecologically similar Pokémon" as a title isn't intending to contrive our own term for these Pokémon; it's just a very concise way of describing the subject of the article - Pokémon that are ecologically similar to each other but are otherwise completely different Pokémon. This is why I was careful not to use "ecologically similar Pokémon" as a term in the article itself to refer to the new species individually. It's only used to describe the pairs of Pokémon that are similar. "List of Pokémon that are similar but are otherwise completely different Pokémon" just isn't nearly as succinct. - unsigned comment from Landfish7 (talk • contribs)

I see people defending the term "ecologically similar" because it's "official", but no one seems to address the fact that "coincidental" is actually more official if we look at how often it's been used. As noted on the page, and worth repeating here, the word appears in three separate official sources:

• Pokédex: "The resemblance seems to be a coincidental result of environmental adaptation."
• World Pokémon Ecological Society: "According to the research, it is said that it is a coincidence that they have similar bodies, as they both burrow in the ground and the sand."
• Official website: "It's said that Wiglett’s resemblance to Diglett might be a mere coincidence—a result of its adaptation to its environment."

--Rocket Grunt 13:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah they use that offfially term, So we do have an option to use instead. Either coincidental Pokémon or coincidence Pokémon as title. Short and not chunky if approved. That could work better than "ecologically similar" and shorter name, Jacob9594 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, isn't ecologically similar actually an incorrect name for the entire group? Poltchageist was described as ecologically similar to Sinistea because both are ghosts inhabiting tea, but that was could meant to highlight it as more of an exception than the rule. The whole point of these Pokémon is that pairs like Diglett (a mole) and Wiglett (an eel), or Tentacool (a jellyfish) and Toadscool (a mushroom), couldn't be more ecologically different, yet they still ended up looking similar. Rocket Grunt 14:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

When you put it like that, we have been using the term for this group of Pokémon incorrectly for several years. Thanks for bringing this to the group on talk page. Jacob9594 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a good solution, but I do not believe that "coincidental" is a good option (or as good as people want to think) to look at as an "official" term. Yes, it is used officially and as much or more than "ecologically similar". But it just does not lend itself to being a good term. "Coincidental Pokemon" really isn't gonna cut it IMO. =P To be fair, if you pull in "adaptation" to make it "coincidental adaptation", that's a little better. But there's been some pushback to that already. And I'm also not sure that pulling together two words that may have been in the same sentence but were pretty separated is "better" (or more official or whatever) than just adding "Pokemon" onto the end of another term we've officially seen.

I think there's just currently no truly "good" option. Not ecologically similar, not coincidental, not even a fan term like convergent (and not "just" because it's a fan term). Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the solution is fairly simple. Since there's no actual official name, the unofficial ones are back on the table and the strongest contender is "Convergent Species". Rocket Grunt 08:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Convergent species is not something we would prioritize, because it's factually incorrect. That's still very much so a factor here: not letting misinformation that's present within the community influence our factual accuracy on a subject. ^Maverick_Nate 08:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Two unrelated separate species that converged in appearance. How is this not a convergent species? Rocket Grunt 09:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You're describing male/female Pyroar Mega Evolving into the same appearance, Mega Latios and Mega Latias doing the same thing, or both Flapple and Appletun's Gigantimaxing into a convergent form. That's what convergent means with its real word definition. Notably not the phenomenon described by this article, even if the fandom wants to challenge the English language. ^Maverick_Nate 09:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, real-world animals don't spontaneously transform into identical forms. They diverge gradually over thousands of generations: a population splits, evolves separately, and some lineages later end up looking similar because of random chance or similar environmental pressures. Diglett and Wiglett feel like a perfect example of that. By contrast, things like Pyroar or Flapple/Appletun don't resemble convergent evolution at all, especially since they're still the same species. A more appropriate term for those would be "convergent forms", not convergent species. Rocket Grunt 09:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Then the example I would use is both Chest Gimmighoul and roaming Gimmighoul evolving into Gholdengo.

Our overall point is that since this concept has only ever been described implicitly, we have to choose the best way to present the topic that takes into account official descriptions and English words that best describe what is going on in a way that doesn't bend the concept to fit, since we're forced to choose a descriptive title since an explicit one doesn't exist. The extent to which we're beholden to a fandom term is that we mention it on the page. ^Maverick_Nate 09:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Gimmighoul is another bad example. It's not two unrelated species that evolved to look similar despite sharing no traits. They're the same species with two different forms. Convergent species doesn't refer to two wolf species being similar, because they share a recent common ancestor that already gave them similar genes. Convergent species refers to cases like the gray wolf and the Tasmanian wolf: one is a placental mammal and the other is a marsupial, yet they independently evolved extremely similar body shapes and behaviors. They're more similar to each other than to their closer relatives. Gimmighoul's forms, by contrast, are guaranteed to share traits, like the fact that both can evolve into Gholdengo, because they are the same species, not examples of unrelated organisms converging. Rocket Grunt 09:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent)In an attempt to get back to the situation at hand, after taking a look at the source material, and also some supplementary content like the Pokology book, I've concluded that we've inappropriately applied the description for Poltchageist/Polteageist to the group of three pairs. I think we'd be fine to move the page to "convergent species" or some iteration on that, because that's a real world interpretation of the phenomenon here. Ecologically similar would be a subsection that specifically calls out Poltchageist, but we'd keep it from applying to the other two. The intro and other explanatory definitions might need some editing to ensure we don't trip onto other pairs, but for the move, it's a fair criticism that the current title doesn't work. It was mistakenly applied to more species than appropriate in an attempt to pull from official sources. ^Maverick_Nate 01:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough and we can go with that suggestion. I support your suggestion. Jacob9594 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested move to 'convergent species'. It has strong enough parallels to the real world phenomenon of convergent evolution, and though not exactly the same (to my limited knowledge), I believe the two are similar enough that it can work with a explanatory rework of the opening paragraph etc. The similar environmental aspect of the tea-based mons being in an 'ecologically similar Pokémon' subsection is/was helpful to understand the similarities and differences of the phenomena too, I feel. Thespeon196 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that works insofar as how we handle things like "Pseudo-legendary Pokémon". While we try to avoid fan terms where possible, the current title can definitely be confusing and may misrepresent some of the included members. I'll be honest, I don't think "convergent species" is ideal, and I think Pokémon stretches the concept to its absolute limits, but I see how that title is probably where this should have started. I emphasize that this is a unique case, but it should solve the more significant issues that the current name is causing. Landfish7 20:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Ecologically similar"

I wonder why there's a separate section just for Polteageist/Sinistea. It kind of weakens the point of the entire page by making it overly complicated for little gain. If they're already on this page, it's already assumed that they are convergent species anyway. I think this specific description could easily be included in the overview section instead. My understanding is that these two Ghost Pokémon are also completely unrelated evolutionarily (which is implied by the fact that their ecological similarity is the main information given about them, so there's nothing more relevant). However, they converged into looking similar because both inhabit tea vessels. So this ecological similarity doesn't undermine the fact that they converged. Especially that it's literally stated that "It's a completely different Pokémon". Rocket Grunt 14:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that these two Ghost Pokémon are also completely unrelated evolutionarily (which is implied by the fact that their ecological similarity is the main information given about them, so there's nothing more relevant). However, they converged into looking similar because both inhabit tea vessels. So this ecological similarity doesn't undermine the fact that they converged. Especially that it's literally stated that "It's a completely different Pokémon".

Can you please clarify what you mean by this? The page considers "ecologically similar" as a subset of "convergent species" which I think is fine, considering the other examples we have of the phenomena only look similar instead of also acting similar.

Minibug (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the point of making such specific subgroups, especially ones created for a single case. If we want to get that detailed, then the Legendary Birds should also be separated from other Regional Forms, because if you read their descriptions, for example, "For a long time, it was thought to be the same Legendary Pokémon as the Articuno previously discovered in other regions", it turns out they're technically convergent species as well. But we don't put them in this category, because they're already clearly classified as Regional Forms. Rocket Grunt 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with TRG here. It's fine to mention that Poltchageist and Sinistcha are the only ones to be described as being "ecologically similar", but I think putting them in a wholly separate table from the other convergent species is unnecessary and implies a division within the group that doesn't actually exist. Storm Aurora (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)