Wolfram87 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
When I was in gradeschool they taught us the "pandas aren't really bears".
But the concensus has changed and now greater pandas are actually classed as bears. Though the lesser (red) panda is not a bear, but a cousin of the raccoon.
The statement "pandas aren't bears" is both true and false due to the ambiguity as to which creature it refers to. Probably not so much a change in consensus as your grade school teacher having heard a more detailed explanation and only took this half-true distillation away from it. Wouldn't be the first time kids have to make do with sub-par information.

No. My point was that in the Sixties the nit picking word was that the greater panda- the "panda bear"- was supposedly "not really a bear". Even in the national zoo they had plaques talking about how they don't know how to classify the animals. But then some zoologist in the eighties thoroughly analyzed the anatomy, and concluded that the greater "panda bear" is indeed a bear after all. Jay Gould devoted a chapter to agreeing with the zoologist. So I can see where the above poster got the now debunked idea that the greater pandas "aren't really bears". Jay Gould talked about how a French explorer of China in the Nineteenth century labeled two kinds of not closely related Chinese animals "panda", and Gould concluded that the simple label was enough to confuse science about both pandas for the next century.
When I was a kid in Washington DC of the Sixties we had a lesser panda pair in the National Zoo (which looked a lot like our own local raccoons). But didn't get the famous pair of greater pandas (which sure as heck looked like bears to me) until the epochal Nixon trip to China when I was a teen.
As a kid I always suspected that the lessers were raccoons, and that the nonscientists who called the big ones "panda bears" were actually correct (the nitpicking experts must be wrong). So I was happy that the scientific community finally came around to agreeing with me!