>>58883813This is assuming that one must believe both at the same time.
I know for a fact Magikarp was never meant to evolve into Dragonite's design, theyre far too inconsistent. Dragonite's original design was also even closer to that of Dragonair, making the connection all the weaker. It's basically just solely relying on "they have similar color pallets". But considering Pokemon lines intentionally change color palettes along evos, that connection has literally 0 weight.
Venonat and Butterfree however, I do genuinely believe as a possibility. The index order is certainly evidence against the idea, but it's also not totally foolproof, given how messy Gen 1's development was -- not only was it contending with developing its entire identity, but the actual coding and implementation was particularly chaotic.
This is to say, using workflow as evidence has holes in it. For all we know, the lines could've been developed partially on spreadsheet, then implemented afterwards in their latest index order.
While many Pokemon share similar aesthetic qualities (many Kaiju mons have the same hammer shaped, 3 clawed forearms for example), Venonat and Butterfree's design language are virtually identical across their entire body. Every single defining trait of Venonat is present in Butterfree (sans exclusively the hair, but EVEN THAT I could see the original Green design intending to have). It's a much stronger visual cohesion than even some evolutionary lines.
Similarly, Venomoth is visually consistent with the Caterpie line. They have bulbous eyes, a layered thorax (or "tail" in the pre-evos cases), and sturdy "horned" appendages. The visual connections not quite as undeniable as Venonat-to-Butterfree, but it's present enough to look cohesive.
We can never know for certain unless stated, but I find it sufficiently compelling to see as plausible.
