One of the common names for the lesser panda is the Fire Cat. Thus the family name.
Personally, I like “poony”. 
make that poonya.
So what about the lack of development in the panda young - why did this evolve?
Very undeveloped young are probably an ancestral feature that the pandas share with other bears. Most bears are born very very small and undeveloped when the mother bears are denning (that is “hibernating”, although they aren’t truly hibernating, just sleeping all day).
Yes, when I said that there was no need, I meant that their method of inefficiently eating mass quantities of bamboo was sufficient to keep them alive as a species, since there were no competitors/shortage of resources/other selective pressures that would dramatically advantage any individuals who had randomly manifested a slightly more effective digestive system. (If, indeed, any such individual had been born in the first place)
Well, the thing about needing some kind of direct stimulation in order to eliminate is also true for puppies, kittens, and baby ferrets, just for the record.
Same reason everything else evolved in this world - it worked well enough that the species didn’t die out.
Yes, I get that - was looking for a more detailed explanation - what makes Pandas different in this respect to say, deer, born ready to run etc.
Natural predators. If a deer isn’t ready to run in a short period of time, it’ll be dinner for a wolf, coyote, puma, etc.
All bears are generally at or near the top of the food chain where they are. They don’t need to run away from predators, as there usually isn’t anything that preys on bears. Any danger they do face, their mother will protect them from in ways that a prey-animal mother, such as a deer, can’t do. They run to catch food, not to get away from predators. Baby bears don’t need to run to catch food- their mothers provide milk for them. Same applies for cats, canids (dogs, wolves, etc), and humans.
Amongst the placentals almost all large grazers/browsers are born well developed while the other species are born blind, unable to walk and often hairless. Grazers need to be born well developed because graizng animals need ot be able to cover huge teritories in a day so it’s impossible for grazing animals to contrsuct a den. The young need to be able to keep up with the mother from the first day.
Omnivores and carnivores OTOH can and do construct dens for keeping the young in while the parents are out foraging. That enables them to be born helpless without any great risk.
Pandas and other bears are born in a particularly poorly developed form, but in practical terms they aren’t anymore helpless than a newborn wolf or piglet. The fact that pandas have recently adopted a browsing lifestyle makes the lack of devlopment of the young seem odd, but really it’s the highly precocial young of grazng animals like deer that are the oddities.
I get where MelC is coming from. How/why did the baby panda birthing alter from that of other ursines, which presumably were doing OK beforehand?
I was at the Panda Breeding Centre in China last year (my experiences there), and those things are basically embryos when born. The mother has to hold her baby in her paw for weeks - if she hasn’t eaten it or smacked it around or stepped on it first.
With the exception of polar bears that could only possibly be considered true for the past few thousand years and is entirely due to human interference. As such it can not go any way towards explaining the way that bears evolved. Before humans exterminated the large cats bears were commonly preyed upon by tigers, lions and so forth. In places where their range overlaps the large cats today bears are still common prey species.
I would need to see some evidence that bears any are better at defending their young than a grazing animal of comparable size. Certainly bear cubs suffer large mortality in areas where predators are common…
The biggest problem I’m having with this is that hyaenas, cheetahs, dogs and so forth are all along way from being “near the top of the food chain” yet all have poorly developed young. All those species indisputably run to get away form predators. And none of those species has much chance of fighting off a determined attack on their young. Yet none have young that are well developed at birth. Whatever is going on here clearly has little to do with a need to run away form predators as an adult.
The point is they are not all that different. When Grizzly bear cubs are born:
This gets back to that “need” issue, again. It’s a lot easier to have helpless young than it is to have young born running. Any fawn born unable to run would be unlikely to survive long, so deer are descended from those with precocious genes. But pandas don’t have nearly as many predators as deer (if any), so it’s not as important for panda cubs to be able to run at birth. So they don’t. For comparison, humans also don’t have any major predators, and our young are born pretty helpless, too.
On the taxonomic question, it’s important to remember that bears and raccoons (and both the critters called “panda”) aren’t all that different in the first place. All of those critters are more closely related to each other than any of them is to a cat or dog.
It hasn’t altered very much. this is a newborn polar bear, which is fairly typical for bears. this is a newborn panda which you can see isn’t significantly different.
The difference is that other bears are able to construct dens to hide their young, and most give birth while hibernating so the young are well grown by the time anyone sees them. Pandas don’t have that luxury so the young have to be kept with the mother, so people see them while they are still undeveloped. In reality they aren’t significantly less developed than the young of any other bear.
Yes but cheetahs and wolves for example have large numbers of predators and are born just as helpless as a bear cub. In contrast elephants and hippos have few if any predators and it is unlikely they ever did have, yet they are born just as precocial as deer.
The difference here is in the diet, not in the degree of predation. Grazing animals need to cover large territories and take their young with them. That means the young need to be able to keep up from within a few hours of birth irrespective of the number of predators.
Obviously I don’t know the birthweight of a baby polar bear, nor its porportion of weight to the adult, and I can indeed see the similarity, but your own cite says:
So there is clearly some magnitude of difference. I wonder why.
OK, did some research to back up my assertion that it is significant. From here I’ve taken the ratio of maximum quoted maternal weight to minimum quoted birth weight for five species (in ounces):
Sun: 2320:10 (~232 times bigger)
Spectacled: 2880:10 (~288)
Polar: 10560:19 (~555)
Grizzly: 7280:11 (~662)
Panda: 3520:3 (~1173)
So the panda’s birthweight proportional to its mother is half that of the next-largest differential, and in absolute terms, the panda’s baby is less than a third the weight of the next-smallest of the species’ babies. I think that’s a significant enough difference to receive comment.