this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
314 points (95.4% liked)
Greentext
7392 readers
533 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just gave a brisk read through that article, btw your link is slightly off, and it doesn't seem to disprove the point much at all. What few historical Mo panda are referenced were called giant iron eating beasts in mythical tales, no artistic depictions, and most of the citations are improper/broken. One of them mentions Bencao Gangmu, a sort of catalogue of plants and animals with pictures, claims Mo panda being between Leopards and Elephants but a quick search did not reveal any such images unto me.
All of the actual depictions of black and white pandas presented on the page were in the 19th century and after.
Honestly, I'm convinced. Pandas are just painted or modified brown bears.
...citations... to books... not broken links lol.
And on page 185, we find the exact text cited
https://www.scribd.com/document/485010568/Donald-Harper-2012-2013-The-Cultural-History-of-the-Giant-Panda-in-Early-China-pdf
For the mythical part, you're conflating Mo panda and mythical Mo chimera, which is confusing. Giant pandas are known to and commonly observed licking rocks, soil, and metal objects to supplement minerals missing from their diet of bamboo, so that's where iron eating comes from. The given ancient decriptions of them are consistent with a panda, but for some reason you've chosen not to quote those descriptions, instead crafting your own.
Sounds like a panda.
No clue what you mean by my link is "slightly off"
The wikipedia contributors were unable to link to a digitization of the book, that's what I mean by improper. I don't own a copy of books written in 223 AD, neither does my local library.
The Donald Harper book you just posted was published in 2012. 2012 came later than the 18th century.
That's not how citations work.
You'll notice under the "General References" section the full citation of the work.
Because the work is cited multiple times, it is appropriate to use a shortened citation, following the proper style according to the wikipedia guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Shortened_footnotes
I'm following this exchange with steadily increasing fascination, still on the fence on whether Pandas exist.
I found a lead. Could help explain why pandas got so famous in China so recently. Taipei Times isn't a great source but it's late and I got excited. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2009/02/08/2003435562
And this: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2151717-the-first-ancestors-of-giant-pandas-probably-lived-in-europe/
Say your library did, you would read this book in Classical Chinese? Or would you rely on a translation, probably published much later?
It being listed in the catalog would at least be some indication that the evidence exists, as opposed to an endless linked list of "trust me bro".
Here’s a digitization of the first one and the second one, including a picture of an edition of the work itself. I found it by googling the names of the works in the quoted section.
If that’s not sufficient, I suggest you ask at your local (or most local) university library.
you are doing god's work with the patience of a saint
Here's a link to the Erya.