eeveeloutions for the win! *throws confetti*

Oh, wow, that's a really good question. I'll be awake half the night because of this. LOL. The writing style wasn't the greatest, but I still enjoyed reading it because of the interesting question. Pokemon names should always be capatalized, just so you know. Such as Eevee, Vaporeon, Jolteon, Flareon, Espeon, Umbreon, Leafeon, and Glaceon. It was okay, not the greatest thing I've ever read. But the question is just mind-bogging.

Interesting oneshot. It really made me think about the subject. But I also have a full box of Eevee's in my Pearl version :)

Why are there more rats than tigers? Tigers are much more powerful than rats, right? So wouldn't that mean there should be more Siberian tigers than sewer rats? And they're apex predators...

Those questions are not viable when taking into account survival. Survival and evolution are about hardiness not brute strength. Too many big creaturesno more foodsome are gonna die.

The Eevee evolution one has puzzled me though-I'll give you that. You'd think they'd be able to breed enough Eevee so that their numbers would be skyrocketing. I mean, just look at the demand on those little guys! Every self-respecting Mary-Sue must have at least five...:)

stronger pokemon are rarer because they are stronger - they have more competition, therefore must lay more egges. As they are fewer, therefore, they cannont group as much.

Magikarp can live in any water toxicity, where some predator pokemon cannot go. Rattata and pidgey are both great scavengers. Evee evolve to five different things, so finding the same eevolution in the same community is less likely.

Wow, that IS a really good question. I never even thought of it, and Eevee's one of my favorite pokemon. Yeah, it is just a programmer, but we're looking at this in a realistic way, aren't we?

P.S. I DESPISE gamesharks!

-spiritwolf101

Interesting story, but if you look at real life, it really does make sense. Look how many rats in the world, but they're not very strong, are they? Yet tigers are endangered, though obviously powerful.

In the Pokemon world it can be said that, just like our world, humans are the cause of it. Pokemon: Humans catch the strong ones, leaving less in the wild, while leaving the weak. Real: Humans poach the interesting animals for fur, ivory, etc.

There are just so many factors, such as how many each Pokemon has in a litter, what they eat and how much of it there is, etc.

I love your style of writing, it's quite entrancing.

you do have a point in saying that the stongest pokemon should be the most common in reality but you left out the fact that the stronger pokemon, being able to defend themselves don't need to reproduce quickly while the weaker pokemon reproduce extremely quickly to make sure they survive, therefore weaker pokemon ARE naturally the common ones.

Well, Alex is right on this one. Plants outnumber primary consumers, primary consumers outnumber secondary consumers and so on. That's how things stay balanced. I'm also pretty sure the reason for only a few legendaries is that they're genderless. Trillions of plankton, thousands of whales. Remember who you are Simba.

Erm... I'm out of both depression and rage now... instead I'm just empty...

lol.

Its simply that some species survive by being strong and other survive by over producing. Lions are hard to kill but have small litters. Spiders, on the other hand, lay hundreds of thousands of eggs in a year. Humans are the worst of both worlds; we have small litters and are relatively easy to kill if we didn't have the tools that our race survives on, the work of the brilliant few who maintain our race.

Oooooh! Me like! The idea is very confusing, though. Why /would/ the weakest be common? ... *toddles off with her Umbreon to try to figure it out*

Thoughtful and clear, but as an essay, I can't mark it very high. For one thing, it doesn't have a real conclusion. For another, you need to think about biology a bit more. Species that have a high mortality rate, or aren't very 'strong', reproduce, well, prolifically. Besides, just because they're strong in battle, why should they be strong in the wild? is the fact that they can understand humans well a good survival feature? Rattata may be better at survival than Eevee because they follow more their instincts than their brains. Or for another reason... that may not necessarily help them in *battle* with another Pokemon. Besides, it might be more in Rattata's interest to outwit an opponent, than physically defeat it. So they might not get so much battling in. Consider it more carefully.

When in doubt blame humanity huh? There are fewer lions then there are Zebras. There are fewer foxes than there are mice. There are fewer sharks then there are seals. The true of the matter is is that if there more lots of preditors and few prey all speices would go exstint. The Ledgendaries are singlar because they are individual(sp) enities. There are so few of the strong ones because the game wouldn't be a challenge if the strong ones were easy to find or get.

I've never looked at it that way.. I suppose the weaklings just breed like rabbits -