Recently ive been thinking about how you don’t like pokemon that step on others toes in terms of design. I, personally, believe they add alot to the pokeverse and here is my reasoning. In the wild, animals have been known to adopt identical traits and natures through evolution simply because it makes them more fit for survival. Looking at the ‘generic normal birds’ they keep adding. In the real world you don’t see one type of bird, they’re dozens upon dozens of species of them. So, to me… 1/2

So I think the second half of this question has been lost in the aether, but there’s enough of it here that I can get the gist of it, don’t you think?

So.  Yes; that is a legitimate point.  I disagree (as, of course, you are aware) but I think it is fair to say that (for example) Pokémon like Pidgey, Spearow, Taillow, Starly and Pidove convey the variety we see even amongst the ‘generic birds’ of the real world, and that this can be called a strength of that design philosophy.  I am inclined to believe, however, that the continued proliferation of ‘generic’ designs like these is simply rather poor prioritisation.  The aim (so far as I can make out) is not to construct a working ecosystem, or a realistic cross-section of the species you actually see in the world; the aim, I think, is to convey the diversity of life, to show how just how weird and amazing some species can be.  Sure, there are thousands of species of birds, but when you already have the pigeon, why would you do the starling and not the cassowary, or the quetzal?

Besides, if we actually try to imitate the spread of species we see in the real world, we’ll wind up with 90% of all Pokémon being Bug-types.