Ailuropoda Evolution

[brobear]

science.jrank.org/pages/5005/Pandas-Evolution-classification.html   
 

Fossils of giant pandas dating as far back as the middle Pleistocene era (about 600,000 years ago) have been found in central and southern China. This suggests that the prehistoric range of giant pandas was much greater than at present, which is restricted to portions of north-central Sichuan Province and southern Gansu Province, and the Qinling Mountains of Shaanxi Province of China.

Giant pandas are descended from the same ancestral carnivores as bears, raccoons, dogs, and cats, and so are placed in the order Carnivora (carnivores) within the class Mammalia (mammals). Pandas have, however, almost entirely lost the meat-eating habit. It is not yet fully resolved whether giant pandas are more closely related to the bear family (Ursidae) or the raccoon family (Procyonidae).



Read more: Pandas - Evolution And Classification - Giant, Bears, Bear, and Raccoons - JRank Articles science.jrank.org/pages/5005/Pandas-Evolution-classification.html#ixzz4cWsmjglU 
 

The first non-Chinese person to describe the giant panda was Pere Armand David, a French missionary living in China, in 1869. He called the panda a bear, based on its bear-like appearance. The next year scientists in Europe examined skeletons and concluded that giant pandas resembled red pandas (which were classified within the raccoon family) more than they did bears. This element of panda classification is still being examined by biologists.

Many aspects of the panda's skeletal structure and behavior support the idea that it is not a bear. An especially important piece of evidence is the presence of a special "sixth digit," which acts in the manner of an opposable thumb. This digit is actually an extension of a bone in the wrist, and it allows giant pandas to grasp bamboo shoots and efficiently strip off their leaves. The red panda also has such a "thumb," although it is less well-developed. Other aspects of panda biology which bears do not possess include: well-developed molar teeth and non-hibernation in winter.

Techniques in molecular biology have allowed scientists to create a "family tree" (or phylogenetic tree) of the relationships among bears, pandas, and raccoons. This has suggested that giant pandas are more closely related to bears than to raccoons, whereas red pandas are more closely related to raccoons.



Read more: Pandas - Evolution And Classification - Giant, Bears, Bear, and Raccoons - JRank Articles science.jrank.org/pages/5005/Pandas-Evolution-classification.html#ixzz4cWstje7B

[brobear]

www.livescience.com/24788-oldest-panda-fossils.html

November 14, 2012

All giant pandas may come from China, but fossils reveal that the oldest known ancestor of the lineage dwelled in Spain, researchers say.

The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) is known worldwide for its black-and-white fur. The giant panda is unique among bears for dining almost entirely on bamboo — other members of the bear family are omnivorous or mostly carnivorous.

Genetic evidence suggests the ancestors of giant pandas diverged from other bears 18 million to 22 million years ago. However, much remains uncertain about what early giant pandas were like and how this lineage of bears changed over time — before the new find, the earliest undisputed giant panda fossils recovered were about 8.2 million years old at most, and were from China.

Now paleontologists reveal two sets of fossil jaws and teeth that they say belong to the earliest member of the giant panda lineage discovered yet. The fossils were recovered from a pair of sites in northeast Spain.

Earliest panda

The species belongs to a newly declared genus, Kretzoiarctos, which means "bears of Kretzoi," named after paleontologist Miklos Kretzoi, who had discovered other extinct panda species. The species is named Kretzoiarctos beatrix, with "beatrix" referring to a colleague of the researchers, Spanish paleontologist Beatriz Azanza. [Butter Balls: Photos of Playful Pandas]

The fossils date back 11.6 million years to the middle of the Miocene Epoch, when the area was humid, moderately warm, and forested.

"The new genus we describe in this paper is not only the first bear recorded in the Iberian Peninsula, but also the first of the giant panda's lineage," said researcher Juan Abella, a paleontologist in Madrid at Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences.

This new bear would have weighed no more than 130 pounds (60 kilograms), making it more or less the size of the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus), the smallest living bear species.

Judging by its teeth, it was an omnivore, but it possessed many dental features of bears adapted to eating tough plant materials such as bamboo.

"It had a very wide variety of food available to it, from meat and fruit to plant stems or even leaves," Abella told LiveScience. "We are unaware if there was bamboo in Spain during the Middle Miocene, but there were many other similar plants associated with humid climates available for Kretzoiarctos."

Questions remain

It remains uncertain whether Kretzoiarctos was colored the same way as modern giant pandas, as no hair from it remains. However, Abella speculated the primitive coloration for this group of bears was also dark with several white patches. This is based on the fact that most bear cubs have this coloration — in many animals, biological patterns seen among the young reflect what their ancestors were like.

These findings might suggest a Western European origin for the giant panda lineage. However, the fossil record of this group of bears is still too scarce and fragmentary to say for certain where they arose, researchers said.

Another mystery: Why did Kretzoiarctos go extinct? "The most probable cause is likely to be the opening up of the forests, giving way to more open, drier spaces and the appearance of similar yet larger and more competitive species," Abella said.
Abella and his colleagues detailed their findings online today (Nov. 14) in the journal PLoS ONE.

[brobear]

First Panda Bear. 
                                       

[brobear]

See also within the "Bear Evolution" section: "Extinct Ailuropodinae"  which features prehistoric relatives of the giant panda.

[Deleted]

[brobear]

I like that this video shows that the short-faced bears came down from the panda evolutionary branch of bears; as I thought. This means that the Andes bear ( spectacled bear ) is more closely related to the giant panda than to the genus Ursus. 
 
                                   

[brobear]

articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-13/news/8503100134_1_giant-pandas-procyonids-national-zoo


Are Pandas True Bears Or Are They Raccoons?
October 13, 1985|By Jan Ziegler. United Press International.

WASHINGTON — A bear is a bear is a bear is a bear. Unless it`s a panda.

It may never have crossed your mind that Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, the famous giant pandas that charm visitors at the National Zoo, may be members of the raccoon family. But it has been an issue among scientists for more than a century.

The question is whether giant pandas should belong to either of the families, or if they should have a family of their own in the vast system of scientific classification that has a label for just about every animal in the world.

Giant pandas, according Stephen J. O`Brien, a research associate at the zoo, have been grouped with bears since their discovery by the Western world in the 1860s.

However, they have un-bearlike characteristics. Giant pandas are vegetarian, consuming mostly bamboo. Their forequarters are huge, rear quarters relatively small. In bears, although some have huge forequarters, rears are generally not as reduced.

``Finally, the giant panda does not behave like a bear,`` O`Brien and colleagues wrote in the scientific journal Nature. ``Most bears hibernate, the giant panda does not; bears roar, whereas the giant panda bleats.``

The raccoon faction has argued that because of its skull and tooth structure, markings and other characteristics, the giant panda belongs in the same family from which raccoons and the lesser or red panda, which really does look like a raccoon, diverged millions of years ago.

To put the matter to rest, the National Zoo researchers called on the powers of genetic technology. They took some cell samples from a raccoon, a giant panda, a lesser panda and a trio of Bruins: one American brown bear, a spectacled bear and a Maylayan sun bear.

Running the samples through three molecular tests that would reveal gene structure, they found the genetic similarities between bears and giant pandas far exceeded the number and extent of differences.

On the family tree, the bear group and procyonid group, to which the lesser panda belongs, probably split from a single ancestor line about 30 million to 50 million years ago.

The procyonids split into New World procyonids--represented by raccoons, coatis and kinkajous--and Old World procyonids, the aforementioned lesser pandas, 10 million years later.

Giant pandas branched off the bear family tree 15 to 25 million years ago. Judging by the molecular tests, they should be considered a sub-group of the bear family.

The ideosyncracies of giant pandas probably are the result of evolution and ancestral characteristics lost by bears after they split from the main line, the researchers wrote.

[Just the facts, man.]

Research into reasons for giant panda black 'n' white pellage patterning:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/170303091414.htm


Amazing that this bear, which pretty much gave up foraging (hunter/gathering) for living, for sitting
'round chewing bamboo has some similarities with the last of the giant apes, in the gorilla,
which has also clung to survival in mere pockets of isolated habitat,
and this was so, even before men began their technology-driven rampage to global dominance.

Of course, neither of these nominally vegan beasts would've likely even made it into the present day, if their chosen
habitats had been found by, or been of interest to, the also rampant lions - which predated mankind's rise/world conquest.

The same goes for tigers too, and although as sloth bears still show, a sufficiently fed tiger may be bluffed away by an aggresive stance,
its a tactic which would surely only bring ultra-violence in return - along with death, if attempted against hungry, mean-tempered lions.

[Just the facts, man.]

Apologies for messing up transcribing that research link, try this:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170303091414.htm

[brobear]

A single lion would fare no better than a tiger in a face-off with a sloth bear. If the fight is carried to the death; the lion would likely kill the bear. But the "King of Beasts" would be left with deep cuts on his face; possibly the loss of an eye or even blinded. Most likely scenario; the lion backs down from a stupid fight. The risk outweighs the prize.

[Polar]

Giant pandas are genetically more subservient than most other bears. But who knows what it could bring into a death-match, even with its lacking weaponry compared to other bears.

[brobear]

I agree Polar. He is a strong animal with a powerful bite and typical bear wrestling ability.

[brobear]

May 9, 2017 5:44:21 GMT -5 brobear said:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailuropodinae

Ailuropodinae

Ailuropodinae is a subfamily of Ursidae that contains only one extant species, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) of China. The fossil record of this group have shown that various species of pandas were more widespread across the Holarctic, with species found in places such as Europe, much of Asia and even North America.The earliest pandas were not unlike other modern bear species in that they had an omnivorous diet but by around 2.4 million years, pandas have evolved to be more herbivorous.

Ever since the giant panda was first described to science they have been a source of taxonomic confusion, having been variously classified as a member of Procyonidae, Ursidae, Ailuridae, or even their own family Ailuropodidae. This in part of their similarities with the red panda in particular the presence of a "thumb" and five fingers; the "thumb" – actually a modified sesamoid bone – helps it to hold bamboo while eating.

Recent genetic studies have shown that ailuropodines are indeed members of the bear family as they are not closely related to red pandas, which are placed in their own family Ailuridae. Any similarities between ailuropodines and ailurids are likely to due to convergent evolution as the fossil record has shown the "false thumb" has been required independently for different purposes. The "false thumb" has actually been found in spectacled bears as well, suggesting that it is a plesiomorphic trait among bears that became lost in the Ursinae subfamily.

Taxonomy[edit]
The ailuropodines are divided into two tribes the extinct Indarctini and Ailuropodini; the following taxonomy below is after Abella et al. (2012):

Ailuropodinae (Grevé, 1894)
†Indarctini (Abella et al., 2012)
†Indarctos (Pilgrim, 1913)
†Indarctos punjabensis (Lydekker, 1884)
†Indarctos zdanskyi (Qiu & Tedford, 2003)
†Indarctos sinensis (Zdansky, 1924)
†Indarctos vireti (Villalta & Crusafont, 1943)
†Indarctos arctoides (Deperet, 1895)
†Indarctos anthracitis (Weithofer, 1888)
†Indarctos salmontanus (Pilgrim, 1913)
†Indarctos atticus (Weithofer, 1888)
†Indarctos bakalovi (Kovachev, 1988)
†Indarctos lagrelli (Zdansky, 1924)
†Indarctos oregonensis (Merriam et al., 1916)
†Indarctos nevadensis (Macdonald, 1959)
Ailuropodini (Grevé, 1894)
†Kretzoiarctos (Abella et al., 2012)
†Kretzoiarctos beatrix (Abella et al., 2011)
†Agriarctos (Kretzoi, 1942)
†Agriarctos depereti (Kretzoi, 1942)
†Agriarctos vighi (Kretzoi, 1942)
†Agriarctos gaali (Kretzoi, 1942)
†Ailurarctos (Qi et al., 1989)
†Ailurarctos yuanmouensis (Zong, 1997)
†Ailurarctos lufengensis (Qi et al., 1989)
Ailuropoda (Milne-Edwards, 1870)
†Ailuropoda microta (Pei, 1962)
†Ailuropoda wulingshanensis (Wang & Alii, 1982)
†Ailuropoda minor (Pei, 1962)
Ailuropoda melanoleuca (David, 1869) - giant panda

The panda bear ( giant panda ) is a distant relative of the Andes bear.

[King Kodiak]

Panda bears: Not as mysterious as we once thought

Panda bears eat bamboo. We all know that. But we also all know that bears are meat eaters. A new study indicates the panda bears' change of diet from meat to bamboo isn't as puzzling as it would appear on first glance.
Like you or perhaps one of your vegetarian friends, panda bears are biologically classified as meat eaters despite their plant-based diets. The panda bear, although historically a carnivore, has long sustained itself mainly off bamboo.
But unlike you or one of your vegetarian friends, panda bears didn’t watch a documentary one day and decide to ban meat from their diets for ethical or health reasons. So how did it happen? When, and why, did the bears abruptly stop eating meat and start eating plants instead?
These questions, which have occupied the minds of scientists since China began loaning its bears to Western zoos after the Communist Revolution, were misguided, according to a May 2 study conducted in the Shaanxi province of China and reported in Current Biology.
Previously, instead of basing their understanding of the evolution of the panda's diet on nutrient consumption, scientists focused on "carnivore" and "herbivore" diet classifications, which are based solely on the type of food or energy, rather than nutrients, consumed

In reality, scientists found that a nutrient-focused analysis shows that the bears’ seemingly mysterious change of heart (or, rather, diet) isn’t so mysterious after all.
Through their bamboo-based diets, panda bears receive levels of protein and carbohydrates typical of hypercarnivores, or animals such as alligators and vultures, whose diets are composed of more than 70 percent meat, according to the study.
So, although bamboo is traditionally classified as a plant, to a panda bear, nutritionally it functions more like a meat.
HerbivoreMany of the herbivorous traits possessed by panda bears, such as dental and cranial adaptations and the pseudo thumb, are concerned with food processing, according to the study.
Many of the panda bear’s traits typical of meat eaters are more closely associated with macronutrient processing, the study said. So, a panda bear’s insides function like a meat eater’s, while the outsides adapted to the consumption of plants.
The panda bear’s pseudo thumb, for example, allows the animals to grasp bamboo sticks and is lauded by scientists as one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution. on the outside, carnivore on the inside
Though they can still be classified as herbivores, pandas eat more like feral cats or wolves, with protein making up 50 percent of the nutrients consumed. The carnivorous classification can be extended across the life cycle – macronutrients in panda milk also indicate carnivorous composition.

This means that when panda bears evolved from their meat-eating ancestors, the diet change from meat to bamboo required far less evolutionary modification than previously suspected. Panda bears didn’t one day arbitrarily decide to drop meat and pick up bamboo sticks.
"The transition was likely more superficial than assumed," the study said, adding that the main changes were probably confined to food-handling traits and some micronutritional modifications.
Scientists have yet to determine when the fateful diet change took place in the evolutionary timeline of pandas. But this study indicates the shift wasn’t nearly as abrupt or dramatic as previously understood.
Panda bears are an endangered species and occur in the wild only in China, which hosts 80 percent of the world’s population of the black and white bear. In March, the country announced plans for the construction of a new national park where the bears can reproduce undisturbed.

amp.dw.com/en/panda-bears-not-as-mysterious-as-we-once-thought/a-48592744

[Deleted]

Sept 4, 2018 19:58:37 GMT -5 Polar said:

Giant pandas are genetically more subservient than most other bears. But who knows what it could bring into a death-match, even with its lacking weaponry compared to other bears.

I think the sloth bear has weaker jaws than a giant panda but it is way more aggressive and has longer claws. I am not sure about the giant panda lacking weaponary but it is definitely the laziest of all bears.

[brobear]

www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/pandas-might-have-originated-in-europe-not-china/?fbclid=IwAR1lsh3Ysb7Fm5Y9sUooLUcgJRPHN_jAoXqyRBGgG5Hq4eoiAoYv9zv6aSU

Pandas Might Have Originated In Europe, Not China.
Miomaci pannonicum, an early relative of the great panda that lived in Miocene Hungary by Fabricious 
 

[King Kodiak]

Pandas Might Have Originated In Europe, Not China. 

This is surprising news, really is. Your reply # 8 also talks about the first Panda found in Spain:

"The fossils date back 11.6 million years to the middle of the Miocene Epoch, when the area was humid, moderately warm, and forested."

[OldGreenGrolar]

No pandas infected with COVID-19, says conservation center

chinaplus.cri.cn/nihao/learn-through-news/438528

Giant pandas have strong immune systems.

[King Kodiak]

AILUROPODA MICROTA





Order: Carnivora

Family: Ursidae

Genus: Ailuropoda

Size: 1m in length, 55 cm in height, 45 kg of weight ( 99 pounds )

Time period: Late Pliocene to Early Pleistocene of Asia (south China)

 
prehistoric-fauna.com/Ailuropoda-microta

[brobear]

Seriously; the giant panda. Looks and acts more like a raccoon than a bear and - like no other bear - feeds on bamboo. In fact, panda is a Chinese word for bamboo. This animal branched off from the bear's evolutionary tree long long ago. If he is indeed a bear, he is certainly the most primitive of the lot. 
Ailuropoda Evolution - Reply #6: A bear is a bear is a bear is a bear. Unless it`s a panda.

It may never have crossed your mind that Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, the famous giant pandas that charm visitors at the National Zoo, may be members of the raccoon family. But it has been an issue among scientists for more than a century.
The question is whether giant pandas should belong to either of the families, or if they should have a family of their own in the vast system of scientific classification that has a label for just about every animal in the world. 
 
*I really love this idea. The Ailuropoda, which includes the giant panda, should be reclassified into a family all their own. If it doesn't waddle like a duck and if it doesn't quack, then it probably ain't no duck.