>>12011528Adding arms to a bird can be done. Like Foghorn Leghorn and Golduck, so this isn't something especially new, especially so for children's games/cartoons.
Adding cannons to turtles, and a lot of other animals isn't new for Japan either, though detestably strange and cheesy.
Adding wings to a lizard is very common, and has been done for a lot of human history in mythology, we call them dragons.
And as for adding 'fins to a fox' that's a little odd yes, but I'm fairly sure that eevee was more based on a cat than a fox, but that's a little beside the point.
Birds don't necessarily need feathers, but most things that consider themselves birds do have feathers. Birds also tend to have a very particular anatomy and profile to them, something that our friends at GF have demonstrated that they do in fact know about. Bird type pokemon generally look like some sort of bird in one sense or another, with exception to a few. And this point could be propagated to a lot of Pokemon that don't particularly look like anything to what they're theoretically suppose to be.
Now, you might claim that blaziken has feathers on it, but that's not immediately clear when you look at the artwork, and in fact, whatever it is covered in is more or less a mystery and heavily left to interpretation. Now does this mean that this automatically discredits Blaziken as a bird? No. But the fact that it has no such birdlike beak, wings, body, or tail all supports the notion.
However, Blaziken does have bird like feet, which it curiously uses for it's hands. (which also begs to question, what are it's feet?), but just that doesn't mean it's automatically bird, and let's also consider that Blaziken's hands constitute a small portion of it's body, the majority of which, doesn't look like a bird in any sense.
So does this mean that Blaziken isn't a legitimate pokemon? No. Was Blaziken suppose to look like some sort of bird? Yes. Does it accomplish this? Not really at all.
So is it a bird?
