The monster entries contain the following information:

General Info: This is information presented at the top of the page and applies to every iteration of the monster.
Name: Name of the monster in Japanese, followed by an English translation/"translation." For more info on monster names on this site, check out the NRAQ at the bottom of the page.
G-Series Apperances: Each film in the Godzilla series the monster has appeared in (in all incarnations) is listed by number of the film in the series. Godzilla himself will not have this listed as, y'know, Godzilla's in all of them.
Other Appearances: This covers films without Godzilla, which I won't cover here outside of direct connections to the Godzilla series, or the various shorts and TV series featuring Godzilla which I'll cover on the site that likewise are directly connected to the main series. This won't be on Godzilla's page, either. Only listed if the monster in question HAS appeared in any of the applicable media.
Species Provenance: While there are multiple meanings of the word "monster," because this is a webzone aboot monster movies, for our purposes the definition of "monster" means a fictional creature of some sort. Because of this, and the underlying continuity connections between the various timelines, before getting into specific iterations of each monster, I'll spend a paragraph or so explaining exactly what that monster IS and what defines it as a fictional creature. This matters in a practical sense to justify what counts as a "new monster," as well as to back up individual entries where there's so little to say that the origin just says, for instance "Ghidorah," but more importantly it's a reflection on this webzone's priorities. Anybody can tell you how tall Godzilla is, but the question of what Godzilla IS, period, is a lot more interesting to me. These sections will also contain a "type" which break down a monster's "monster-ness" into a handful of categories, which will include in a parenthetical any further elaboration:

• Natural: This is a monster that is fictional only because it doesn't exist in the real world. In-universe, natural monsters aren't technically monsters by the definition used here, because in the series itself they're just an ordinary part of it. Godzillaurus and the giant octopus are examples of this. If parentheticals are needed for natural monsters, it's probably only to indicate their home world.
• Supernatural: The natural world is the result of processes we can observe and test, in the realm of science, so anything supernatural is outside of that... in the real world. In the world of the Godzilla series, "supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean it's outside the reach of the scientific method, but rather it operates according to rules and systems we simply have no demonstrable equivalent to in the real world. Whatever the circumstances behind the creation of Mothra or Varan are, they are definitely real and clearly there in-universe, but their nature is the result of forces that simply don't exist in real life. Parentheticals for supernatural monsters will specify what flavor of supernatural they are.
• Mutant: This is the classic, these monsters are the result of an oridinary creature in-universe (the original creature may very be a different kind of monster) being mutated into some new horrible creature through some other outside means. Godzilla and Rodan are radioactive mutants created by nuclear weapons. Mutant parentheticals will specify the method of their mutation.
• Engineered: Supernatural and mutant monsters are still in some sense "natural" in that they were born or created through - in the world of the Godzilla series at least - ordinary processes. An engineered monster, then, is outside of that scope. These are monsters created completely artificially by third parties, usually genetic engineering, and are designed rather than born or mutated. Biollante and the Dorats are both artificial, genetically engineered monsters. Parentheticals for this type will be used to specify te method of their engineering.
• Construct: While "monster" has a clear definition for this site, "creature" does not. Mechagodzilla is one of Toho's big five and for merchandising and headline purposes they are a monster, full stop, and to disagree with that would be to tear down the entire house of cards with it. We can make sense of that for some of them because the original was a robot, the anime one a grey goo monster, etc., but the VS series one was just a straight up purely mechanical mecha, and that complicates things. If that Mechagodzilla is a monster, why the hell isn't the Gotengo a monster? Because it doesn't have legs? This is a question I'm still debating how I'll handle on this site and it may very well be that I say screw it and give all the mechas a page in this section, but in the meantime, a construct is anything like Mechagodzilla or King Shisa which is like an engineered monster, only constructed from non-organic parts or means.
• Cyborg: Cyborgs are always part construct and part something else. This is pretty simple to me, if a machine isn't a person, and a person isn't a machine, then something that's half of both is neither, but needs to be considered as its own thing. This is why Mecha-King Ghidorah and Gigan are their own monsters, both are cyborgs created from non-cyborg origins. Since they're always going to be half-construct, the other half of the cyborg's "type" from this list will be the parenthetical.

Specific Info: Information that appears at the top of each individual monster entry.
Image: I use screencaps I take myself from the various digital copies of the films I have. I only use these screencaps for these images, not promotional photos. It isn't really all that impotant, but I simply insist on representing the monsters how they're actually seen in the films themselves. Because of this, some monster entries might have no image at all.
Timeline Icons: Directly under the image are little icons I made for each of the timelines depicted in the 33 Godzilla films and the associated shorts and TV series. Clicking one will bring you to the page for that timeline (if I've started it, of course).

• Chaotic Good: Monsters who's goals align with the overall wellbeing of the Earth, which often makes humanity evil from their perspective. Most Godzillas and Mothra fit this. The Godzilla: Unleashed equivalent is "Earth Defender" and the Monsterpocalypse equivalent is "Radical."
• Chaotic Neutral: Monsters who really only care about breaking stuff. Most Ghidorahs fit this. The Godzilla: Unleashed equivalent is "Rogue" and the Monsterpocalypse equivalent is "Destroyer."
• Chaotic Evil: Monsters who's main goal seems to be to just cause suffering. This is basically Dracula. Godzilla: Unleashed doesn't have an equivalent for this but the Monsterpocalypse equivalent is "Fiend."
• Neutral Good: Monsters who are just plain nice, but without any other agenda. In Ultraman Cosmos these are the kind of monsters that are prime targets for corruption. No equivalents in Godzilla: Unleashed or Monsterpocalypse.
• None: Monsters who are only trying to survive and acting on natural instincts, with no other agenda. Any monster that's just a big animal, basically. Also called "true neutral" or "unaligned" in D&D. 2nd edition Monsterpocalypse uses "Collaborator" for monsters that can be used in either faction, but that doesn't quite seem to be the same thing.
• Neutral Evil: Monsters that are out for blood, but without any other agenda. The Minus Godzilla is definitely this. No equivalents in Godzilla: Unleashed or Monsterpocalypse.
• Lawful Good: Monsters who are sworn protectors of civilization. Mechas built by humans usually fall in this camp. The Godzilla: Unleashed equivalent is "GDF" and the Monsterpocalypse equivalent is "Protector."
• Lawful Neutral: Monsters that consider themselves arbitors that get to decide how things ought to run. A lot of Ultramen are like this. Godzilla: Unleashed doesn't have an equivalent for this but the Monsterpocalypse equivalent is "Collaborator" in 1st edition.
• Lawful Evil: Monsters who's goal is conquest, to replace one type of order with their own, almost exclusive in the form of alien invasions. The Godzilla: Unleashed equivalent is "Alien" and the Monsterpocalypse equivalent is "Invader."

Statistical Info: Physical stats. If a monster has multiple forms, they'll have multiple blocks of these stats for each.
Height, Length, and Wingspan: Self explanatory. These are always given in meters. Where there is conflicting information about these, I use my own judgement. Sometimes information will be logically inconsistent - such as the VS-2/3 Godzilla having a tail that's 32m longer than it was in the 80's, but the overall length is given as the same - and I do some basic math to fix that. Other times I just have to figure stuff out on my own completely, although this isn't offten.
Weight: Weights are always given in metric, because... well, duh. Monster weights are always given in metric tons, but I don't feel the need to specify that they're metric tons in the bios because... why would I mix imperial and metric units in a franchise that always gives the stats of its monsters in metric?
Abilities: The total scope of any given monsters abilities are hard to define, and I don't garauntee my criteria are consistent or objective. All named battle techniques get tossed in, of course, as does flight, which is a very specialized thing. Swimming is something you can be bad at but for Earthlings, at least, simply existing in water isn't really much of a feat. Physical techniques usually won't get listed unless it's some kind of special or signature move, like the kangaroo kick or w/e. Essentially, try to think of the list of abilities like pokemon moves. I may make amends to the criteria of how to list this stuff later on, but for now that's good enough.

Notes: Anything in the entries which needs further explanation will be elaborated on here. This is primarily for personal speculation used to fill out the gaps where needed, and explaining the thought process behind my attempt to fill those gaps here.

1954 GODZILLA
1955 ANGUIRUS
1933 KONG
1962 GIANT OCTOPUS
1961 MOTHRA
1956 RODAN
1964 GHIDORAH
1966 EBIRAH
1966 GIANT CONDOR
1967 KAMACURAS
1967 KUMONGA
1958 VARAN
1963 MANDA
1965 BARAGON
1967 GOROSAURUS

1969 GABARA
1971 HEDORAH
1972 GIGAN
1973 JET JAGUAR
1973 MEGALON
1974 MECHAGODZILLA
1974 KING SHISA
1975 TITANOSAURUS

1984 SHOCKIRUS
1989 BIOLLANTE
1991 GODZILLASAURUS
1991 DORAT
1991 MECHA-KING GHIDORAH
1992 BATTRA
1957 MOGUERA
1994 SPACEGODZILLA
1994 FAIRY MOTHRA
1995 DESTROYAH

1999 MILLENNIAN
1999 ORGA
1956 MEGANULON
2000 MEGAGUIRUS
1970 KAMOEBAS
1998 ZILLA

2016 5TH FORM
1964 DOGORA
1997 DAGAHRA
2017-2018 SERVUMS

1973 ZONE FIGHTER
1973 WARGILGAR
1973 SPYLER
1973 ZANDOLLA
1973 JELLAR
1973 JIKIRO
1973 GAROBORG
1973 SPIDEROS
1973 MOGRANDA
1973 KABUTOGUIRAH

1995 SACHIEL
1995 EVANGELION

1962 MAGMA
1969 GIANT RAT
1969 GRIFFON
1970 GEZORA
1970 GANIME
1989 GUNHED

Q: Where are Minilla and Godzilla Junior?
A: Those are Godzillas, so they're covered under the entry for Godzilla. I can't think of any reason why I should be treating them as distinct monsters when they're just individuals of the Godzilla species.

Q: Why is Godzilla's 5th form a different monster, then?
A: The origins behind the 5th form aren't clear, but we know based on this wonderful thing called the language of film that it in some way involes Goro Maki. This makes the monsters a hybrid between Goro and Godzilla, and if that makes Biollante a distinct monster, it should make the 5th forms distinct too. Additionally, rather than Godzilla himself mutating into the new form, these 5th form creatures are generated by and climb out of Godzilla's tail, meaning that rather than BEING Godzilla, it's more accurate to say they were BIRTHED from Godzilla.

Q: Well why don't you count the two Servum species as different monsters then?
A: I do, actually! I've just put them both on the same page for convenience reasons, but they're treated seperately.

Q: What about "Ghidorah?" I don't see King and Keizer Ghidorah as different entries, why?
A: It's the same as Godzilla. Now, this is a more nuanced topic, and I've gone back and forth on it for some time, but ultimately my reasoning is this: there are 6 distinct prefixes given to the Ghidorahs: King, Mecha, Death, Cretaceous, Kaiser, and... none. "King" has always been something of a formal designation, as he is repeatedly called simply "Ghidorah" by marketing, characters in the films, and in one case even the English title of the entire film itself. More casual fans conflate all of these iterations, regardless of how different they are. In two notable cases, when bringing a 1996 Bandai Death Ghidorah toy home from G-Fest, the X-Ray machine guy was looking through my bag and saw it and nerdgasmed about it being Ghidorah. He clearly had never seen that particular Ghidorah or movie, but he instantly recognized the monster despite the design being very different. Ghidorah is, I remind you, extremely well known and saturated in pop culture, and not just hyper nerd shit like, say, Moguera. The other is James Rolf's "Godzillathon" video series, where, when he covers Final Wars, simply addresses the monster as "Ghidorah." So, culturally, there is a case to be made that they're the same monster.

From a lore perspective, Death Ghidorah's only known direct origin is an old word of god claiming that he is King Ghidorah's son. That immediately tells you that the King/Death moniker is an individual name, like Minilla or Mothra Leo, and not an indication of it being a different type of creature altogether. Although they are very different, Death is not the only four-legged Ghidorah, and remember that these monsters are aliens, and we can't take any part of their biology for granted, especially in a universe with magic insects and time travel where radiation makes dinosaurs shoot lasers. Cretaceous Ghidorah is even more explicit because he is, in his film, intended to be simply the younger version of King Ghidorah, not a separate individual at all. Of course we do eventually discover that the modern Ghidorah was actually a second one born from his regenerating tail, but the point stands. GMK tells us that Ghidorah is actually Orochi, and because GMK is in the 1954 continuity family, that makes Orochi part space monster, something Orochi, the Eight Headed Dragon actually flirted with, and tells us the creatures can wildly fluctuate not just in name, but in number of legs and even heads. The final nail in the coffin is that while the anime Ghidorah is refferred to in marketing as "King Ghidorah," the monster is never called that in the film. The implication of this is obvious; this isn't just any Ghidorah, this is THE Ghidorah, the REAL one, the Outer God that defines the concept of a Ghidorah which all inhabitants of this universe are just avatars of. Because there is a 54 year precedent for the main version being "King" as opposed to Death or Kaiser or w/e, people want to lump him in with the others... but that's not what the film itself is actually saying. The intention is very clear, and so following from that we have to accept that Kaiser Ghidorah is no more different a monster than King Ghidorah than King Kong is to Little Kong, or Godzilla is to Minilla, or Mothra is to Mothra Leo.

Q: So why is Mecha-King Ghidorah counted separately? Or Battra for that matter, isn't Battra just a black Mothra?
A: My criteria for what constitutes a "new monster" is based on the world the films take place in. What is a monster, and where do they come from? A monster is a fictional entity, creature, robot, etc., and most of the time - particularly in these movies - they are the result of an abnormal process happening to transform something natural into something monstrous. Godzillasaurus is a monster because it's not a real species of dinosaur, however, in the world of the films, it is, Godzillasaurus is a real animal in these movies in the same way Tyrannosaurus is to us. Godzilla, then, is a monster created by radioactive materials, a mutation of that animal into something altogether different. So, we consider Kamoebas to be a monster, but not the matamata turtle, Ganime but not the rock crab, Gezora but not a cuttlefish. Other methods of creating monsters aside from mutation include supernatural causes, genetic engineering, and cybernetic augmentation. While MKG and Battra are just modified versions of Ghidorah and Mothra, those modifications are important. It's why I'm counting the 5th form as a distinct monster, because something changed. MKG and Battra do not represent individual variation. Instead, MKG went through a process similar to Gigan (which does mean that if we ever see an organic Gigan in the series, I will count it as a new monster), and Battra was changed by the supernatural mana/Gaia/whatever itself directly against its will, and didn't simply end up like that because a Mothra larva cocooned itself around a punk concert or something.

1. If the monster's "type" under their species provenance section is different from their closest relatives, they are automatically a new kind of monster.
2. It must be differentiated from its closest relatives by a process which an individual can't directly control, such as the intervention of third parties or the passage of evolutionary time.
3. The differences between a monster and its closest relatives must be definitively not accounted for by individual variation.

Q: So... if Ghidorahs are natural monsters, because they're aliens but that's what's natural for their kind, and Orochi clearly has supernatural origins... regardless of the name, doesn't that make them different monsters by your own criteria?
A: Uh... yeah, it might, actually. I'm actually kind of on the fence aboot this because none of the supernatural stuff in GMK replaces the original monsters. Like, Baragon and Godzilla in GMK are both possessed by ghosts, and it's clear that those supernatural circumstances have brought them back to life, but when you actually see the monsters in action they aren't any different. Baragon is still Baragon and, unlike the original draft's versions of Anguirus and Varan, is more or less indistinguishable from a non-ghost-possessed Baragon in every meaningful way. Godzilla regenerated which certainly seems like it's a kind of zombie Godzilla, but we already know that Godzilla can do that anwyas, so while the influence of the souls possessing Godzilla seems to be much greater, outside of his general attitude there's, again, not a single tangible difference between that Godzilla and, say, the 2nd or 3rd generation ones. And obviously Mothra was already supernatural and seems the same as always. So in each of these cases the "supernatural" aspect of their origin isn't really an aspect of their origin, both of them existed as the monsters they already were prior to their possession and said possession doesn't actually seemed to have altered them. Imagine if you "mutated" a Mothra with radiation, but instead of turning into Gigamoth it just... didn't, at all, it was exactly the same as if nothing happened. So we can't call that part of the monster's defining speciation in those cases.

It's really just Ghidorah that seems so different, and even then the fact that it's Orochi is mostly ignored by the resulting film because the Orochi we see is physically indistinguishable from King Ghidorah. But this is complicated because although Toho made two Orochi movies, one of which ended up being so close to Ghidorah that it's the reason we got Kaiser Ghidorah in 2004 instead of 1994, but we don't know which if either Kaneko considered to be a representation of the past of his film. Smart money is on the '94 film, because that fits into GMK's continuity perfectly as is, but in that film Orochi isn't just being possessed by spirits, they're treated fully as the same entity as Tsukuyomi, the moon god, and not a distinct creature. So... is Orochi a distinct monster because the supernatural aspect goes beyond just reviving them and may have created a distinct identity? It might be, remember that Orochi is far, far older of a monster than Ghidorah, and when Toho made its movies featuring them they didn't necessarily intend to connect the two, so the reason why Orochi has more heads than any other Ghidorah is never specified. Also remember, Orochi is the only Ghidorah in the GMK timeline, and while it is connected to the 1954 continuity family, Ghidorahs are very old and we don't know how different the timeline is outside of what we see. So the rules for Ghidorahs could've changed, the nature of Orochi could be wildly different from what we see in Toho's movies, etc. Bottom line here is that it's just hard to tell.

Naturally, for my page here on this webzone I'll have my own interpretation and ideas of how what we see and are told in GMK relates to the broader context of the films its related too, and the way I'm choosing to handle that is similar to the Servum page where it's "two" monsters sharing the page, but it's a much softer division. My editorial on the species provenance still includes Orochi as a Ghidorah, but Orochi will get their own editorial on their provenance where I'll get into these questions in more detail. So, bottom line, is Orochi technically a distinct monster from Ghidorah to the same degree that Battra is from Mothra? It's definitely possible. The real way to know for certain is if Orochi ever reproduces. Arguably, they already have, but I don't think a chipped fang turning into an sniveling cartoon villain actually settles that debate.

Q: What about Godzilla Earth and Filius, then?
A: Although the AniGoji timeline is outside the 1954 continuity family, every other monster besides Godzilla - including Biollante - featured in the films or prequel novels is the equivalent of their 1954 continuity family versions, which only a few minor complications. So while it is a reboot and they were free to shake things up a lot more, Gen Urobuchi and Renji Oki had way more fun taking the established monsters and putting their own personal twists on them. Godzilla is the only exception that truly can't be ignored, because the films do in fact reinforce Godzilla's nature as a plant-animal hybrid creature. So... yes, this does make Earth and Filius, by my own criteria, different monsters from the proper Godzillas we're used to seeing. Arguably, this might make Shin Godzilla distinct as well, but the issue there is we just really have no idea what exactly Goro Maki actually did to spark the events of that film. We know the end result is the spare head and 5th forms, but we don't know what's going on past that. Shin is a weird case though because that film both emraces its nature as a full reboot while still not really challenging the 1954 continuity family, so it's 100% capable of being interpreted with Godzilla being either the same or totally different, which is something really special aboot it. As for Earth and Filius, the solution to this is - because make no mistake aboot it, in the films that IS Godzilla, I know him when I see him - is the same as the one with the Servums and Orochi. The context is different for all three, the Servums and Godzilla are definitively different monsters, and Earth/Filius and Orochi still carry the identity of being the thing they're named after. I can write anything I want here, but I still have to fit it into a format that makes sense. so given the circumstances that's the best I can do.

Q: Some of these entries don't use the official Toho English spellings. Why?
A: Because those official spellings are wrong. It is one thing to have a made-up nonsense word, but it is quite another to mispell "Shisa," which is a pre-existing creature from Okinawan mythology and not something Toho invented wholecloth on their own. Other names I have fixed spelling errors for are "Destroyah," which was originally meant to be and is based off of "Destroyer" so "Destoroyah" is objectively wrong, and "Kaiser Ghidorah" because, again, "Kaiser" is a real word that already exists. You wouldn't spell "King Ghidorah" "Keeng Ghidorah," would you? No, so I don't do that here either.

Q: But what about Anguirus and Meganulon? Aren't those based on real animals?
A: Yes! The names come from Ankylosaurus and Meganeura in particular, a Cretaceous dinosaur and Carboniferous insect, respectively. However, while this is the inspiration for the names, you'll notice that - while they may be related - the Toho monsters are not actually of those genera. As such, regardless of their pre-human ghost lineages, I still regard these creatures as fictional, because they... y'know, are? So calling Anguirus "Angylus" wouldn't really make any sense when Toho already gave us their made up name for the made up creature. I will take this where I can get it, as Titanosaurus, the monster, actually shares a name with a real genus of dinosaur, which is really dumb and I hate it. Also remember that evolution is a thing, so aside from the Millennium Meganulon, none of these modern day monsters are any type of prehistoric animal that actually lived in real history, they are new creatures altogether, and even then the Millennium Megnulons were given not one, but two distinct species names (apparently it was something like an Anomalocaris situation) in the film, so even when they are actually from the Carboniferous, they are still not any of the three known species of Meganeura.