>>35014429Cyndaquil was also created when most pokemon were mishmashes of different animals or ideas. Lost of Pokemon in the first two gens are "that kind of looks like it could be a kangaroo or a rabbit" instead of "that's obviously a owl with a leaf on it".
In cyndaquil's case it could be an echidna, it could be a shrew, it could be a mouse, it's probably a mix of all of those. It evolving into a big honey badger does not negate the fact that it is, at least in part, based on a mouse.
Charmander evolving into Charizard falls under the same category. Pokemon don't always evolve into the same animal they were based on before. Especially in early gens. They started out as pocket MONSTERS. As time went on it's more and more become pocket ANIMALS WITH A GIMMICK.
So Cyndaquil evolving into something not mouse-like (which can be argued) doesn't negate the fact that it still had mouse/rat like aspects before, fitting into the Zodiac theory.
7 gens, 7 fire starter lines that fit with the Zodiac. 2 of those 7 can be argued and nitpicked into fitting or not. But NONE can be outright denied. So that's 5 yes' and 2 maybes. I don't get how that points to the theory being false.
