Did Rahi reproduce at all?

I ask this question due to some rping, when we realized…how do fish in the MU stay well not completely over-fished and dead? Like we know fishers exist, and if fishers exist that means fish are being taken out of the water and killed/entrapped. So did the Makuta just replace them at an equal rate, or did they work in a reproduction capability? I guess this question extends to rahi that were hunted by other rahi. Like wouldn’t those rahi run out if they didn’t have some way to reproduce?




As I recall there is natural life as well as rahi

This man out here asking the real questions.

But for real, earlier ideas about them reproducing normally or things like matoran building them got scrapped, so… I don’t think there was ever an official answer for the current canon.

They are mutant viruses though so maybe they reproduce like viruses.


I’m pretty sure Greg addressed this already in a similar question. Aqua Magna has its own marine wildlife, the squid that the Barraki used as ammo were an example of this that we know for sure, but there were others. There’s every possibility that with a retroactive lens that we could look at these fish “Rahi” as just fish from Aqua Magna’s oceans. It also just raises a lot less questions about how they would eat these Rahi to begin with when there’s so much metal in the way…

1 Like

I was more curious with how fish inside the GSR functioned.

Ah, cripes, my brain completely overwrote “MU”, I apologise.

In the Mystery of Metru Nui (Adventures #1), right at the beginning of chapter 4,
there’s a line from a archivist who’s talking about Tehutti, and says "“probably another Rahi only it’s mother could love.” (p.50 in my copy, but also searchable on the Biological Chronicle project file). I like to think this gives the green light for baby Rahi.


Rahi are eaten by Matoran by ‘absorbing their energies’, no physical chewing needed (that’s why they found Skakdi disgusting).

@GoingGoingGone, this could simply be a ‘translation error’ form Matoran into English, like how Rahkshi are called the Makuta’s sons.

But, to answer the question, no rahi is mentioned to be capable of breeding in canon, but the Morbuzahk can produce seeds, so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility.


However Rahi reproduce, I think we can be quite confident it isn’t eggs. Otherwise I would have expected Hewkii and Nuparu to recognize sea squid eggs as such. Instead, they compare them to Bohrok.


It should be noted that the fishing occupation (and the related aqua hunting of Mahri Nui) only existed on the surface of Aqua Magna, where much of the wildlife were biological creatures and not Rahi.


it’s possible they “reproduce” by budding like some invertebrate do

The Makuta just design the rahi Lego sets, other people buy the sets and build them. As long as the matoran universe has Lego fans, new rahi are built every day.


I also want to bring up the existence of nests, as created by flying rahi. It’s possible that this is another example of a “translation error,” but since bird nests are primarily used for sheltering eggs and incubating young, this implies the existence of immature rahi.

1 Like

Matau wanted to ask Nokama to build a nest with him when they were Hordika


In chapter 2 of tale of the Toa, Lewa knocks a baby Taku out of its nest.


“Tale of the Toa” is semi-canon because it was written by C. A. Hapka. And nest may just be something like house for Rahi.


The answer was literally 2 topics below.

1 Like

No it isn’t.

These weren’t the main question. If there is no biological reproduction, there is no fish overpopulation. And as fish were shown and described, they work on the same way as normal fish, except that they are unable to reproduce, as simple as it is.

1 Like

-Matoran practise fishing.

-In the MU, all the fish will be Rahi.

-Did the fish (and by extension all other Rahi) reproduce? (or were they just replaced by the Makuta at an equal rate)

-And if not, how did they not run out years ago?

Not a single mention of overpopulation, rather the complete opposite. And in fact, your answer here just affirms their concern of this being an inconsistency. If what Keplers says is true, that could be an answer. What you’re saying however is in no way helpful.