Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

the best evidence that the giant panda is more closely related to bears than is the raccoonlike lesser panda involves A) comparative anatomy B) comparative embryology C) DNA sequence comparisons D) behavioral similarities E) fossil records Answer is C but why not A?

See more answers at
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer


To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

Sometimes very distantly related species live in the same or similar environments for a long time. The adaptations that let one species survive are the same adaptations that make the other species well suited to its environment - so they start to resemble each other more and more, even though they are not closely related.
but doesnt the fact that the lesser panda is raccoonlike show differences in anatomy?
But what if the Lesser Panda was closely related to bears - but relatively recently moved into a new niche in the ecosystem? Then a totally different set of traits would make the Lesser Panda more adapted for its new environment, it would evolve quickly and soon look quite different than the bears, even though they were closely related.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

I'm still a bit confused. I guess DNA sequencing is the ultimate test for relatedness but doenst comparing anatomy also show relation? e.g. homologous traits?
In real life comparative anatomy usually gives a pretty good indication. If I were you I would forget the Pandas example and concentrate on the theory. Let's say you have two organisms which diverged a long, long time ago. So long ago that for the purposes of discussion, they are unrelated. If these two different species live together in the same environment for a long time, they will face the same selective pressures and will develop similar responses to it. So much so that they will come to look very like each other, even though they are distantly related. Now imagine the opposite case: two species which are closely related, but for whatever reason suddenly live in very different environments. They will face very different selective pressures; different features will make them well adapted for their environments, so they will end up looking quite different even though they are still closely related.
ok I think I get the theory. so fitting it back to the panda problem, even though the two pandas may have developed similar anatomy due to similar environments, they are actually very distantly related as compared to the giant panda/bear which are more closely related but in different environments.
and the only way to tell is through DNA comparisons
Yes, I think that is correct with respect to the Pandas.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question