Talk:List of Pokémon by evolution family

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search

Zangoose and Seviper

Should Zangoose & Seviper really be listed as one family? They're not related in any way, on the contrary - they're enemies. It's not the same as listing Tauros & Miltank or Volbeat & Illumise... Thoughts? --ElectAbuzzzz 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I had noticed that before, and was considering changing it myself. I'm pretty sure that there's no way they're related. Arch rivals, yes, but the same family, no. Drapion 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, true, I guess. They're not really related as much as they are rivals. --TTEchidna 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Family of One

Can I just say right now that it's stupid to call a family with one member a family. I suggest we just drop the word "Family" for all families of one, like so:

Lowest Trigger Middle Trigger Highest

Drapion 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I personally kept those for the future scenario where they get additional members. TTEchidna 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tauros and Miltank

Should they be a family? I'm 99% sure that their relation is more than just fan speculation and was in an official guide or something like that, but I can't remember.--Shinin 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but these are evolution families.--Starlight the ampharos 00:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


I made an account specificly because of this. Somebody forgot everyone's favorite pink gooey friend Ditto which should be in between Lapras and Eevee. --KenStabler12 05:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes... that is quite major. Thank you~ 梅子 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Region-based headings

Is calling the families "Kanto-based", "Johto Based" etc, wouldn't it make more sense to list the headings as "Generation I-introduced families" instead? Especially considering that Gen II Pokemon like Houndour and Houndoom aren't actually found in Johto, or that the Roselia and Chimecho families are more common in Sinnoh than they are in Hoenn. --Thingamajig257 10:54, 4th February, 2010

Solrock and Lunatone

I don't see why Plusle and Minun are counted as one family while these two aren't. --Thingamajig257 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nidoran family & EP sorting

I can't figure out how to do it. The Nidoran lines should be in a shared "Nidoran family" Especially since both Nidoran can hatch from Nidoran female eggs, like it's the case with Illumise.

Oh and I have an idea. There are 3 columns (1->2->3) Wouldn't it make sense if pokemon would be sorted by amount of Effort points? For example, this way, Lapras(2EP) would be in the middle column like Shelgon, Farfetch'd(1EP) would still be in the 1st column like Bagon, while Lugia(3EP) would be in the last column, like Salamence.

An obvious example are Mantine and Skarmory. Right now Skarmory is above Mantyke. With the above sorting, Skarmory would be above Mantine since they both give 2 Effort Points. --Saiph charon 15:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The following pokemon's places would change with this:

Lickitung & Lickilicky (2 & 3), Kangaskhan (2), Lapras (2), Pinsir (2), Tauros (2), Aerodactyl (2), Articuno (3), Zapdos (3), Moltres (3), Mewtwo (3), Mew (3), Unown (2, lol), Girafarig (2), Shuckle (2), Heracross (2), Corsola (2), Skarmory (2), Miltank (2), Raikou (3), Entei (3), Suicune (3), Lugia (3), Ho-oh (3), Celebi (3), Sableye (2), Mawile (2), Torkoal (2), Zangoose (2), Seviper (2), Solrock (2), Lunatone (2), Tropius (2), Absol (2), Relicanth (2), Regirock (3), Regice (3), Registeel (3), Latias (3), Latios (3), Kyogre (3), Groudon (3), Rayquaza (3), Jirachi (3), Deoxys (3), Spiritomb (2), Carnivine (2), Rotom (2), Uxie (3), Mesprit (3), Azelf (3), Dialga (3), Palkia (3), Heatran (3), Regigigas (3), Giratina (3), Cresselia (3), Manaphy (3), Darkrai (3), Shaymin (3), Arceus (3)--Saiph charon 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason Nidoran doesn't have a shared family is because the Group version of the lop/evo template doens't allow for evolutions. --Goldenpelt 22:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't Frillish's fermale form be added to the Frillish Family? Likewise with Unfezant? I know it's only a difference in appearance between the male and female, but at the same time, they are different members of the same family.. Opinions? --Beyondashadow 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not an evolution family!

First of all, though admittedly similar, Plusle and Minun are not an Evolution family, neither are Throh or Sawk. They are not gender couterparts and they do not share a basic form. Also if we are to carry on including Sawk and Throh in the same family, isn't calling it the "Geki" family misleading? Yes their Japanese names share the element but to English speakers it means nothing. Thanks Anaserfrdrews12798 15:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up above - it is currently IMHO arbitrary and not remotely factual, but someone would probably revert it if changed. Why Plusle+Minun and Throh+Sawk are an evolution family but not say other counterparts like Mawile+Sableye, Lunatone+Solrock and Heatmor+Durant is utterly beyond my comprehension. Shiny Porygon 16:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with everything here, as do a few other staff members, so I've changed it. If anyone disagrees, they'd better have a really good argument. Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 17:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

sorting pokemon without 3 stages into columns by amount of EV

Anyone know how to move a pokemon 3 or 6 columns in, leaving empty space with background colour before it?

In order to move for example strong single-stage pokemon like Skarmory, Bouffalant etc. into the middle (an indicator for the column is the amount of EV pokemon give, since these range from 1 to 3, always going 1-2-3 on 3 stagers; in the case of Skarmory, it gives 2 EVs just like its counterpart Mantine who got a pre-evolution that gives 1EV, hence they're in different columns currently). It would just make sense (and even make likely candidates to get pre-evolutions easy to spot, which is interesting I thought)--Saiph charon 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually think it looks fine as it is. I'm sure if they get an evolution or pre-evolution in the future they will be moved around. The Pokémon aren't in different columns based on their EV, they are based on the order they go in for their respective evolutionary lines. :) Frozen Fennec 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously they would get moved around then, that wasn't my point, it would just be an interesting side-effect; I know they aren't sorted based on EVs. I wouldn't be suggesting it otherwise. The amount of EV a pokemon gives is directly related to its stage in the evolutionary family.--Saiph charon 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that we should keep the lowest stage on the far left. Also, while EVs are a good indicator of if a Pokémon will get evolutions or pre-evolutions, not all evolved Pokémon give more than 1 EV. --SnorlaxMonster 13:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow that's odd. I wonder how that happened.

There is 1 other line that has weird EVs (Paras 1 -> Parasect 3), but this is a first. Regardless, the 2 exceptions are both obvious about what column they'd fit (unaffected). What I'm suggesting wouldn't make it any less good or correct, and the pre-evolution thing isn't the main reason (they can still simply decide to give something a pre-evo and then improve its EV like happened to Roselia 1->2), its also about adding the feeling of how strong a pokemon is. If you came to this list and saw the likes of Heracross, Tropius and Skarmory in the middle column, unlike Delibird and Luvdisc who would be in the first, or all the legendaries in the final column, you would immediately understand that these start off as middle stage strong and aren't the average pokemon that you encounter in their weaker forms. It would just feel right. I'm not asking anyone to bother applying this cosmetic change, just point me towards something that will make me figure out more about how this all works with templates and such.--Saiph charon 22:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to list them is simply based on the way they are now, not the way they may be in the future. The list is not about strength, but evolution stage based on the stages they have now. --SnorlaxMonster 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking about any future, I even said that twice already. Look, Tropius is middle stage strong in the present time, indicated by its stats, and more directly by amount of EV it gives. It directly relates to the stage in the evolution family. This is the only place where this can be shown (and the only place that it should) and does no harm to the info on it.--Saiph charon 19:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The list is not, never has been, and never will be about stats or EVs. They are irrelevant to this page. It is about evolutionary families, and when we have one entry because there are fewer entries in that row it should be on the left because the rest of the table is left aligned. It would be aesthetically displeasing to have the alignment scattered. Werdnae (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how it would be any more aesthetically displeasing than it is right now, but nevermind then.--Saiph charon 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Trivia (Maybe)

If I'm incorrect with this, I'm sorry, I haven't acquired Black or White yet. However, from what I've seen here, Generation V doesn't expand any pre-existing families, which is something every generation has done before (except generation I for obvious reasons). This would make Generation V more unique and would be worthy of a trivia note. Though, I'm sure I'm just missing someone.~Polky 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that peice of trivia is mentioned on the Generation V page already. Generation V is the first generation since Generation I not to introduce any baby Pokémon or cross-generational relatives is the text on that page. I don't see any harm mentioning it here if you decide to. --Pokemaster97 23:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Legendaries and the idea of "families"

Why are a lot of the legendaries that do not evolve or morph considered in the same family? This brings up the question on what a family is considered here. I believe when talking about a family in Pokemon, we are not talking about who is related in the storyline or the scientific meaning to family, we are talking about physical evolutions or morphs. The legendary birds, etc. should not be considered in the same family as they are completely separate pokemon.

On top of all this, why do we even call them families? Is it because it is just the popular term? They have nothing to do with a family if in essence a Charmander that evolved into a Charmelion is the same exact being. On another note, it would be nice nowadays if Nintendo dropped the idea of saying they have 649+ pokemon when they really have around... I counted 328? The 649 turns a huge amount of people off, I would say it is one of the most complained about matters with the games. --Gheta 17:00, 07 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly needs redirect?

This page does not redirect from "List of Pokemon by evolution family". Seems like a bit of an inconsistency. --Cedrickc (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

List of pokemon by evolution family does, and sincethe search bar is case insensitive it has the same effect. --SnorlaxMonster 12:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Gen VI

It is known that Talonflame evolves from Fletchling. Where should that be added? - unsigned comment from Spyspotter (talkcontribs) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Milktank/Tauros - Lunatone/Solrock - Minun/Plusle

If Nidoran(M) and Nidoran(F), and if Volbeat/Illumise are in same family, Milktank have to be in Taurus family too (Milktank is a female Tauros).

If there is Legendary families, such Mew family, Legendary Birds family, etc. Lunatone and Solrock, and Minun and Plusle that are related have to be too. - unsigned comment from Shideravan (talkcontribs)

Nidorans and Volbeat/Illumise can breed each other. Tauros/Miltank, Lunatone/Solrock, and Plusle/Minun cannot, and I think the legendary families should not exist (since, y'know, by definition legendaries do not evolve). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon Families

I think it's not right to call this article "List of Pokémon by evolution family" once this families aren't defined only by the evolutions, but by other factors too, just like breeding. So the page should be moved for "List of Pokémon Families" or another appropriate title. Suic12- (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, these families actually are only define by evolutions, which includes breeding and factors which make pokémon evolve. — Molt (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that the name should instead be "List of Pokémon by evolutionary family" as the adjective form of evolution makes more sense in this context than the noun form. Zombiedude347 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Generation indicators

I would really like to be able to see which pokemon are from which generation in this table. This would be very helpful for people who are not playing the newest generations and although the region groups mostly do this, there are still some families that are only partially available in some versions, e.g. in FireRed Lickitung exists, Lickilicky doesn't. What I effectively have in mind is a mix between this page and the List of Pokémon with cross-generational evolutions. — Molt (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This page does its job quite well as is. Generation does not need to be part of that job. That'd only be cluttering it up. Besides, at worst, it should only take one such misconception (like the person tried to evolve Lickitung in FRLG) before they investigate further and figure out things aren't as they thought. I think that's not too burdensome. (I also think it wouldn't be a problem for most people in the first place.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is not about which Generation some Pokemon were introduced in, this is about which Pokemon are part of which family. Thus, Generation doesn't really play a part here. One would also not go here to check if Lickitung can evolve into Lickilicky in FRLG, they would go to Lickitung's page.--ForceFire 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I know it's not the job of this page, but this is where one lands when searching for an evolution chart. @Tiddlywinks: I was one of those who had to figure out that things weren't as I thought, that's why I am now looking for a page showing both, the evolution families and the generation of each pokémon, because with the amount of pokémon technically available in FRLG it does become quite burdensome... at least for me, but maybe I'm just missing something. However, Google searches for "pokemon evolution chart/list/table by generation" only bring you here. I just thought it would be a good idea to discuss this before creating a new page which basically is a copy of this one with a bit more information... — Molt (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If you've found the List of Pokémon with cross-generational evolutions, I'm not sure what's hard... You know what generation you're in, you can see on that page what generation any Pokemon (in a cross-gen family) belongs to...just don't try to evolve the ones on that page that are past your generation. Finding that page should be the hardest thing about the problem you're talking about. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding Mega's?

Mega Evolutions are a type of evolution. They're also extremely similar to Forms/Formes. Formes are shown here, Forms are shown here, and evolutions are shown here. I suggest Mega-Evolutions be added as well. --BlackButterfree (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Megas are not a true evolution. In any case, Darmanitan's Zen Mode is not shown either. Like Darmanitan's Zen Mode, Mega forms only appear in battles. That means, IMO, it's not something that should or needs to be included on this page. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Outdated trivia

One of the trivia points at the bottom states "Generation V is the only generation not to introduce cross-generational evolutionary relatives" but wouldn't that be false now that Gen 6 has been released? Either the trivia needs to be removed, or changed to "Generation V was the first generation not to introduce cross-generational evolutionary relatives."- unsigned comment from Sylveon (talkcontribs)

Sylveon is a cross generational evolutionary relative.--ForceFire 09:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Trivia wording

I think the way one of the trivia points is worded implies something incorrect. "By far, most three-stage evolution families were introduced in Generation I, with 27 such families having their roots there." To me, this suggests that most of the three-stage families that exist were introduced in Gen I, but depending on the definition of "most," this isn't true. I would think most means over half, and 27 is nowhere near half of 81 (which is what I counted for three-stage Pokemon--even if I was a little off, it's still not half). I don't know if this is really making sense, but I think it's wrong to say that "most" were introduced in Gen I when it's only around a third. I figured we should change it to say that Gen I introduced more that any other Generation, but that was reverted. In all fairness, Tiddlywinks may have had a point in reverting me, but I didn't see what it was. I really need some sleep though so I'll come back in the morning. slimey01 04:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right about 27 of 81 not being "most," but Tiddlywinks' edit summary also correctly points out that your rewording implied that all of those lines were fully three stages at the time they were introduced, which is also wrong. At the risk of sounding overly jargon-y, I think the correction that best preserves the current wording would be simply to change most to a plurality of. I'll go ahead and make that change now. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit! I wasn't sure of a good way to reword it. slimey01 13:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion, not for now but for the future

I know we've had some controversy in the past about whether to group unrelated but similar Pokémon together (such as Throh and Sawk), and in fact I'd railed heavily against that idea on the grounds that they are not related by evolution and this is a page of evolutionary families. Well, at the E3 Pokemon presentation today, the translator said the Pokédex would group each Pokémon with its evolutions or other similar Pokémon. I know this is very early, but I just want to mention it so this idea is not forgotten — if this is correct and not a translation error, perhaps when Sun/Moon comes out, it would be good to move this page to a more neutral title (removing/substituting "evolution" in some way), and grouping the Pokémon by the groups canonically listed in the Pokédex. That way we would have a page more firmly grounded in canon rather than arbitrarily deciding that evolution constitutes a "family" and other similarities don't. Again, certainly not anything to worry about yet — just something I wanted to bring up so I don't forget about it later. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Depending on how formally they do or don't organize it, I think it might also be possible to just include the "similar" variety by way of some sort of special note in this list. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

112 or 113 Pokémon that do not evolve in Gen VI?

According to this page, there are 113 Pokémon that do not evolve in Gen VI. According to the category, Category:Pokémon that are not part of an evolutionary line, there are 112 Pokémon that do not evolve. Is there an explanation for the count being off or is it an error? --Super goku (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides User:Iml908/Furfrou, the category was missing Unown and Arceus, which I've just added. Neither count appears to include Phione or Manaphy, which don't evolve, since we treat them as an evolutionary line. --Abcboy (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Alola Forms

I think that in this section, and in "branched eolutions" and "cross-generation", it would be a good idee to include Alola forms as if it was another Pokémon. For the Pikachu family, we would have Pichu, then Pikachu and after, Raichu and Alola Raichu.--Anubis91330 09:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Our policy has always been very firmly that forms and Megas do not count as "another Pokémon," so I think it would be self-contradictory to start doing it now with Alola Forms. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Professor Rowan trivium

With the addition of several ambiguous groups this generation (the guardian deities, Ultra Beasts and Type:Null and Silvally) — not to mention the split between Legendary and Mythical Pokemon that wasn't accounted for before — this trivium is becoming extremely overcomplicated for very little benefit to my eyes. We can't even use any easy shorthand for the groups we're excluding with a word like "special Pokemon" because that's already used in canon for a different thing, so I had to make up the term "ordinary Pokemon" as shorthand for "everything that's not Legendary/Mythical/tapu/UB/Type:Null/Silvally". At this point, I think this trivium is just more trouble than it's worth. Does anyone have an actual reason we need to have it at all? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, as the person who tried to do the math for a Gen VII update, I feel it's getting a bit complicated on what counts anymore. Still I'd recommend keeping at least some (but maybe not all) aspects of "Rowan said this, but it was more like this when Gen 4 came out and it's now like this in Gen 7." Also, with this weird category, I'd definitely count Legends and Myths, and probably Tapus and UBs, but would you count Type: Null and Silvally in this weird "Legendithical" group? Paintspotinfez (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, Pumpkinking0192, how'd you get certified to make a userpage? We both started editing real pages in the mainspace in around December, and I've had my account since February. Any tips to be able to make mine? Paintspotinfez (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The tapus, UBs and Type:Null/Silvally all share the same Pokedex background that seems to be implied to signify a "lower tier" of Legendary/Mythical-esque Pokemon, but there's not an official term for it yet so we have to list them all separately, unfortunately. But since they're all in that "lower tier", I'd say they all need to count together. As for the userspace, if you're looking at my user contributions page, you may want to click "view oldest" — I've actually been editing since May 2012. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Since we now have Legendary Pokémon that do evolve, I think there isn't really a good reason to exclude them anymore. While that does achieve Rowan's number, nothing about his statement gives me any reason to exclude Legendary Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster 08:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah! That's a good solution. Thank you for suggesting it! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Meltan and Melmetal

How do we put Meltan and Melmetal in this list? Because, so far, the only way to evolve Meltan to Melmetal is by feeding it candies in Pokémon GO. --SilSinn (TIDs: 768426S, 123446UM) (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Added. --Spriteit (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Position of Meltan & Melmetal

Currently, Meltan & Melmetal are at the end of the Kanto table. However, the introduction to the article says that families are sorted by the National Dex number of their earliest released stage. Therefore, the family should be between Zeraora and Grookey. I would have just done this, but I wasn't sure at all whether they'd go into the Alola table or the Galar table, as they're not from either of those regions. However, as they were released in Generation VII, I guess they should go into the Alola table? - MxFlix (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

HOME groups them in a separate category entirely, so I've done the same on this page. --SnorlaxMonster 13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Table name

Currently, the tables are titled "[Region]-based evolution families". However, as some Pokémon (especially of the ones introduced in Generation II) were not found in the region that was introduced in their Generation, e.g. Houndour & Meltan, I feel like it would make much more sense to change that to "Generation [Nr.]-based evolution families". - MxFlix (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Official sources (such as HOME and Pokémon GO) group Pokémon by region, not generation, so I think doing so on this page also makes sense. --SnorlaxMonster 13:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Mime Jr.

So I don't see any reason for the Mr. Mime family to be separated from the Galarian Mr. Mime family. For Raichu, Exeggutor, Marowak, and Weezing, they are all included in the same family. But for the Mr. Mime family, they are separated even though evolving a Mime Jr. is functionally the same as evolving a Pikachu, Exeggcute, Cubone, or Koffing; it's the same method for each form, it just varies based on the region. There are two differences here: one is that one of Mime Jr.'s potential evolutions has a further evolution, Mr. Rime. But I don't see why that should separate them into separate families. The other is that Mime Jr. is "optional" - it is a Baby Pokémon obtained by breeding its parent with the Odd Incense, otherwise you'll breed a Mr. Mime (according to the rules of breeding regional forms). Nonetheless, they still can be in the same family, as you could have a Mime Jr. in, say, Alola, and evolve it into a Kantonian Mr. Mime, or you have the option of transferring it to Galar and evolving it into a Galarian Mr. Mime, and perhaps into a Mr. Rime. It's the same idea as the others, so why the separation? MarioMiner (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Problem is, someone didn't predict unequal evolutionary line and we need an admin to fix the template. I would also suggest adding eggs to connect families like Nidoran's.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 11:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)