Much of character recognition in animation is based on silhouette. In twentieth century western culture, it was customary for men and boys to wear trousers. The legs of a bipedal critter already have a silhouette not unlike trousers; compare Long Pants. Adding an untucked shirt to the silhouette results in pantsless appearance once the backlight is turned off.
In twentieth century western culture, a skirt was a tertiary sexual characteristic, used as an easily silhouettable shorthand way to say that a character will fill some approximation of a feminine gender role. They can go shirtless because they lack a certain secondary sexual characteristic. Adding a shirt would push the character too close to the Petting Zoo People tier.
How come there aren't as many pantsless female Funny Animals (Daisy Duck being one of the few examples) as there are pantless male Funny Animals?
Again, a skirt as a tertiary sexual characteristic. Otherwise, you may need to add a hairdec. Notice Daisy's big @$$ bow.
For one thing, Petting Zoo People are generally taller (in heads) and look more anthropomorphic than Funny Animals, meaning they have room for more clothing. For another, PZPs dresslike humans as a shorthand way to say that PZPs think and act like humans.
Why aren't there as many shoe-wearing pantless half-dressed animals (e.x., Daisy Duck and Fowlmouth) as there are shoe-wearing shirtless half-dressed animals (e.x., Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse)?
