I couldn't seem to find one elsewhere, at least not with a scientific source.
It would seem as it's quite a striking feature there would be an advantage it would infer.
Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI couldn't seem to find one elsewhere, at least not with a scientific source.
It would seem as it's quite a striking feature there would be an advantage it would infer.
As your commenters have suggested, no.
In order for an explanation to be a good evolutionary explanation, it needs to have a testable hypothesis and a mechanism to test it.
The most common mechanism for testing the crypsis (camouflage) hypothesis is to take a large number of closely-related species, and see if their coloration differences are correlated to a particular habitat. Since pandas have few black-and-white relatives, there is no statistical power in this analysis.
Another option is to take a large number of pandas, create a treatment and control group and bleach the treatment group (or their eyespots) white, and compare survival or visual acuity. Unsurprisingly, this has not been done.
Here's a nice article to animal coloration for those that have access:
Caro, T. I. M. (2005). The adaptive significance of coloration in mammals. Bioscience, 55(2), 125-136.
I quite like the explanation I found on the website of "Exploring the BioEdge". Robin and Honeybadger explain the black and white colouration as follows: To minimize the risk of being attacked by the tiger, the colouration of the giant panda is aposematic, warning would-be predators of its vice-like hug and bite. This warning signal, visible even in poor light, consists of a black-and-white contrast on the face (ears and eyes) as well as the body as a whole.”
http://explorebioedge.com/bio-bullets/item/43-warning-colouration-in-the-giant-panda.html