Very Obscure Things We Know A Lot About

Kate P wrote:

Pandas are notoriously lazy.

And if you see how miserable they look in Beijing Zoo, you wouldn't hold much hope of them being the great white (and black) symbol of hope for the Chinese economy.

They make a fortune on the black market though. Never had a panda fur coat no?

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Speaking of pandas, has anybody seen the red pandas in dublin zoo. They are bout the size of a dog and the blurb at their cage says that they are not related to pandas in anyway and are actually closer to raccoons. I reckon Dublin Zoo should look for a refund under the Sale of Goods Act.

You've stumbled onto a contentious issue. I was fond of pandas as a child (red and giant) and I recall that they were both classified as belonging to the racoon family, which isn't actually million miles away from the bear family. But wikipedia has this to say on the issue:

Quote :

For many decades the precise taxonomic classification of the panda was under debate as both the giant panda and the distantly related red panda share characteristics of both bears and raccoons. However, molecular studies suggest that giant pandas are true bears and part of the Ursidae family,^[15][16] though they differentiated early in history from the main ursine stock. The giant panda's closest ursine relative is the Spectacled Bear of South America. Disagreement still remains about whether or not the red panda belongs in Ursidae, the raccoon family Procyonidae, or in its own family, Ailuridae. The giant panda has been referred to as a living fossil.^[17]

The red panda and the giant panda, although completely different in appearance, share several features. They both live in the same habitat, they both live on a similar bamboo diet and they both share a unique enlarged bone called the pseudo thumb, which allows them to grip the bamboo shoots they eat.

Molecular and genetic studies are the brash young newcomers to the art of classification and they are frowned upon for upsetting a lot of unquestioned assumptions.

905 wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Speaking of pandas, has anybody seen the red pandas in dublin zoo. They are bout the size of a dog and the blurb at their cage says that they are not related to pandas in anyway and are actually closer to raccoons. I reckon Dublin Zoo should look for a refund under the Sale of Goods Act.

You've stumbled onto a contentious issue. I was fond of pandas as a child (red and giant) and I recall that they were both classified as belonging to the racoon family, which isn't actually million miles away from the bear family. But wikipedia has this to say on the issue:

Quote :

For many decades the precise taxonomic classification of the panda was under debate as both the giant panda and the distantly related red panda share characteristics of both bears and raccoons. However, molecular studies suggest that giant pandas are true bears and part of the Ursidae family,^[15][16] though they differentiated early in history from the main ursine stock. The giant panda's closest ursine relative is the Spectacled Bear of South America. Disagreement still remains about whether or not the red panda belongs in Ursidae, the raccoon family Procyonidae, or in its own family, Ailuridae. The giant panda has been referred to as a living fossil.^[17]

The red panda and the giant panda, although completely different in appearance, share several features. They both live in the same habitat, they both live on a similar bamboo diet and they both share a unique enlarged bone called the pseudo thumb, which allows them to grip the bamboo shoots they eat.

Molecular and genetic studies are the brash young newcomers to the art of classification and they are frowned upon for upsetting a lot of unquestioned assumptions.

Yes indeed. And they gave us the delightful new piece of knowledge that we are much more closely related to rabbits than had been previously assumed.

Now if we could just cross-breed those two emoticons, cactus...

I never mentioned the Pandas! 

cookiemonster wrote:

I never mentioned the Pandas!

I know, I know. I bet you want to rewrite the whole thing now.

905 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I never mentioned the Pandas!

I know, I know. I bet you want to rewrite the whole thing now.

I do, well I always have. I completed it while I was dying of the flu and drugged up to my ears. It was riddled with typos. In one paragraph I wrote "there" rather that "their" and "piece" rather that "peace". And then my lecturer decided that he really liked it and wanted to keep it and use it as an example text on various subjects and I said yes and now I CRINGE thinking of people reading the damn thing! 

Kate P wrote:

Now if we could just cross-breed those two emoticons, cactus...

That's playing God Kate P and it's interfering with Nature! Where will it end?!

My thesis was titled 'An objective evaluation of grey level edge detection algorithms' . Real early days image processing stuff. When cut and paste was literally cut and paste.

All seems very silly looking back on it now.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Now if we could just cross-breed those two emoticons, cactus...

That's playing God Kate P and it's interfering with Nature! Where will it end?!

Like this, I think Ard Taoiseach...