Thread:Marcusbwfc/@comment-5889551-20180811193910/@comment-134861-20180829163041

" just because they're treated as species in-game does not make them legitimate species outside of it"

there is no "outside". It's all just separate continuities.

The conceit of the "null canon" is simply the virtual pet and Digimon Web continuity. Fuck, I'm the one who started calling that the "null canon" in the first place, it's not a fandom-wide term.

All it's referring to is the storyline communicated almost solely through species profiles, instead of an independent narrative.

> That is not comparable to Ciel in the slightest and you know it.

I wasn't comparing it to Ciel. I was comparing it to, for example, ZeedGarurumon.

> They're not even acknowledged by the art book

Because they're not critical to the narrative. Monmon was a speaking character, even has a DRB entry -- is it in the artbook?

> I already said that both the Dots and NXes existed to promote a figure line several posts ago.

The toyline had existed without dot figures since long before the Story games, and those including the dot figures were off the market long before lost evolution came out. It does not make sense to view the games as solely marketing the figures, rather than simply being a concept the marketers wanted to put out through both publications.

> which just counted as normal Agumons in the field guide,

Not even just the field guide. When you get them, the game tells you they are Agumon and will lose their costumes if you evolve and degenerate them. It calls them Agumon when you put them in the DigiBank. They're explicitly treated as no different than putting Tailmon in a coat, even in-game.

Dawn/Dusk, to be clear, in their narrative voice, call the Dot species "subspecies".

> Secondly, Rockmon and MachLeomon can be regarded as betas of Golemon and MadLeomon since they fill the same niche.

No more than Giromon and Tekkamon. Especially since MachLeomon has different evolutions than MadLeomon.