Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Why Kangaskhan's baby is not a Pokemon itself?

  1. #1

    Default Why Kangaskhan's baby is not a Pokemon itself?

    I've got interested in Kangaskhan lately, and I wonder why Kangaskhan's baby is not a pokemon itself. I see that Instead of evolving into a big Kangaskhan, it's becoming a Kangaskhan, But it looks different from Kangaskhan, and it seems strange to me that pokemon that looks different from other pokemon, turnover it. For example, "babys" pokemon that evolving into a very big pokemon - Teddiursa > Ursaring, Growlithe > Arcanine.

    So what do you think about that?
    Wobbuffet and his trainer.(credit: Serebii.net)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    This relates to any Pokemon medium, not just the anime, so I moved it to the appropriate forum.

    Bulbagarden - The Original Pokemon Community.
    PSN: ShinyGeodude XBL: Shiny Geodude
    Add me and tell me please.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,797

    Default

    Because it isn't a new Pokemon.
    It's just a baby Kangaskhan.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    443

    Default

    ...because for whatever reason gamefreak hasn't gotten around to it yet?

    Picture used in signature is from Pixiv

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    3,743

    Default

    We've all asked that question at one point or another. No real answer, other than laziness on the creators part, and to keep Kanga as one of those pokemon who don't evolve.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Possibility #1: The 'baby Kangaskhan' is actually a smaller twin.

    Possibility #2: The parent is so overly protective that the babies are literally unable to fight until they're adults themselves.

    Possibility #3: The game designers don't feel like making a Baby Kangaskhan Pokemon since it has been shown for so long in its parent's pouch that seperating them would require extra work.

    Possibility #4: Too much energy put into musing about such a minute detail of a massive franchise will only lead to headaches and Wild Mass Guessing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    add me on kik winkface
    Posts
    2,310

    Default

    This has made no sense to me whatsoever.

    It must be a baby.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,090

    Default

    I don't get it either. Even if it stays in its mother's pouch, it should still be classified as a Pokemon, right? We know that it will eventually evolve into a Kangaskhan because of its mother, so it IS a Kangaskhan pre-evolution. That's pretty clear.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Where my Dragon Army is...
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SladeJT View Post
    Possibility #1: The 'baby Kangaskhan' is actually a smaller twin.

    Possibility #2: The parent is so overly protective that the babies are literally unable to fight until they're adults themselves.

    Possibility #3: The game designers don't feel like making a Baby Kangaskhan Pokemon since it has been shown for so long in its parent's pouch that seperating them would require extra work.

    Possibility #4: Too much energy put into musing about such a minute detail of a massive franchise will only lead to headaches and Wild Mass Guessing.
    Agreed.
    Also...how can Kangaskhan be born with a child?
    now thats the real enigma here...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    821

    Default

    If you were to breed a Kangaskhan, an egg would be produced.
    Once that egg hatches, a Kangaskhan would come out with a child?
    So a baby Kangaskhan already has a baby Kangaskhan?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Daten City
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Do we really need another useless pokemon?

    true original diva

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,797

    Default

    Or maybe the Baby Kangaskhan is part of the Kangaskhan itself. It can't detach for long, and it surely cannot live on it's own..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterCharizard15 View Post
    Agreed.
    Also...how can Kangaskhan be born with a child?
    now thats the real enigma here...
    See my idea on how the 'baby' is really a small twin.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    51

    Default

    It wouldn't be that hard to just introduce the baby as a seperate pokemon. Make it very rare/noexistant in the ild, but available through breeding.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Beyond the Moon
    Posts
    78

    Default

    It could be a new Pokemon, but it isn't. It just a baby that Kangaskhan always carry with them, just like a kangaroo does.
    But one interesting thing is that when Kangaskhan hatches from his egg he is already born with a baby in his pouch. That I can't understand.

    --------Click to see my Fakémons--------

    Please look at torterra09's Serebii's Gyms/PKMN League game

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    United kingdom
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SladeJT View Post
    Possibility #1: The 'baby Kangaskhan' is actually a smaller twin.

    Possibility #2: The parent is so overly protective that the babies are literally unable to fight until they're adults themselves.

    Possibility #3: The game designers don't feel like making a Baby Kangaskhan Pokemon since it has been shown for so long in its parent's pouch that seperating them would require extra work.

    Possibility #4: Too much energy put into musing about such a minute detail of a massive franchise will only lead to headaches and Wild Mass Guessing.
    The second one seems most reasonable, personally. :]

  17. #17

    Default

    Put it this way. Irl, a baby Kangaroo is not an entirely different species is it? But then you could say "But Pichu is the baby of Pikachu, what's the difference?" Pichu EVOLVES into Pikachu. A baby Kangaskhan merely grows up.

    Growing up =/= Evolution.
    Current Platinum Competetive Team in Chao Form with Items:


    "Tiering doesn't matter, win with your favourites, because in the end, it all comes down to strategy."

    "My Pokemon counter their counters. Expect the unexpected."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,090

    Default

    This is Pokemon. In Pokemon, there's no such thing as growing up. They evolve.

    Pokemon =/= Real-life animals.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,908

    Default

    Threads like this have been made so many times. :|

    A baby Kangaskhan is a Kangaskhan.

  20. #20

    Default

    Well, I think I have a way that Game Freak could put the pre-evolution, and additional evolution into the games...Here is how it would work......

    Step 1) Like with Snorlax breeding, you can only get Munchlax through Snorlax holding a Full Inscence...This could be a way to get the baby "Kangas". Like Munchlax, it would be able to learn a few moves that Kangaskahn cannot.

    Step 2) Like with Combee/Vespequin, only the Female could evolve into Kangaskahn.

    Step 3) Unlike Combee/Vespiquin, the Male "Kangas" could also evolve, but it would be more like the difference between Nidoking/Nidoqueen. Mostly the same moves, however stats that are somewhat different.

    Just an ideal for 5th Gen whenever it happens.



  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kanto
    Posts
    149

    Default

    i've always thought this. Also i can't stand that all Kangaskhan are female!!!!!!!!! Where are the dad Kangaskhans. Is it just like that in the games or what?! I thoguth the anime had males.....
    Gotta Catch 'Em All!

    Top 8 at South Regional VGC 2011

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    150

    Default

    It was shown in tha anime that pokemon are smaler when they are born. Baby squirtle was smaller than ash's squirtle. So, there IS growing up in pokemon. Baby kanga grows up, they dont evolve, so, they aren't a new pokemon. As for the baby with the kangaskan from the egg? They were lazy and didn't make a new sprite for new born kangaskan.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Delaware, U.S.A
    Posts
    254

    Default

    I just find it really odd that a baby, far off from being able to reproduce somehow already has a baby the second it is born. So you're telling me something that hasn't even been born yet has already fulfilled the requirements to have a child that subsequently lives in its pouch? I'm not buying it. As for the baby Kangaskhan, that's exactly what it is. Not a different pokemon.
    Wi-Fi Information


    Generation IV: 0945 8756 3712

    Generation V: 4513 8790 3689

    Generation VI: 2509 2637 2112

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    4,283

    Default

    A baby Kangaskhan is a Kangaskhan ;;

    watch me apply the pressure
    all decked in lace and leather
    3DS FC: 0817-4861-0470, PM if you add

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •