On 21 Nov 95 19:52:59 EST you wrote:
[...]
>According to Ken, a big
>error is that the red (or lesser) panda [Finally! Something about pandas!]
>does not have an opposable thumb. Ken summed up P.'s major errors in facts:
>as "P. distorts evolutionary theory and mischaracterizes the fossil record."
[...]
This is an important point that I would like cleared up. Pandas says:
"The Puzzling Panda. The giant panda and the lesser, or red panda
present us with an eloquent illustration of the problem with
homologous and analogous structures. Both pandas are native to the
bamboo forests of southwest China. For over a century, scientists
were unable to agree whether the two pandas are members of the bear
family or the raccoon family. About half the studies done on the
pandas concluded that they are bears; half concluded that they are
raccoons. In 1964 a study was done that is now generally accepted as
the definitive interpretation. Its conclusion? That the giant panda
is a bear, but the red panda is a raccoon!
Here is a classic case of scientists being unable to decide which
similarities to treat as decisive. Until the 1964 study, they were
unanimous on at least one point: that the two pandas are close
relatives and should be classified in the same family. There are
compelling similarities in skeletal structure, internal organs,
behavior, and chromosome count that connect the two animals and set
them off from other animals.
Perhaps the most dramatic similarity is that each panda is graced with
a "thumb" (see Figure 8). It is not a true thumb but rather an
enlarged bone of the wrist. Yet it operates much like a thumb and is
even partly opposable. The giant panda uses it to strip bamboo, an
activity in which it is engaged most of the day. The red panda's
thumb is smaller than the giant panda's but is used in much the same
way."
(Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question
of Biological Origins", Second Edition, Foundation for Thought
and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1993, pp30-31)
Now "Of Pandas and People" does not actually say that the Red Panda
has an "opposable thumb". In fact it does not even say that the Giant
Panda has one either. What it does say is that both the Giant and Red
Pandas have an "enlarged bone of the wrist" but the Red Panda's "thumb
is smaller than the giant panda's".
Is this last claim correct or not?
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------