the type of a Subgenus of Ursus. 229 



resemblance, and even the distinction of species has till very 

 lately been difficult and vague. In proof of this it is only neces- 

 sary to refer to the earlier editions of the Systema naturae. Hero 

 the true Ursi are united in one species. But at present ten 

 species are clearly defined, and among these striking differences 

 of character are observed. It is foreign to my purpose to go into 

 an examination of all these species, or to attempt a subdivision of 

 the whole genus; my present object is. to compare the Helarctos 

 with those typical forms io which it is most nearly related, or 

 froin Avhich it differs most widely. To this comparison it is how- 

 ever necessary to premise a general list of the species at present 

 distinctly known and described. They are the following : 1. Ursus 

 arctoSf Linn. This will probably be found to c«mprise two species, 

 for the indications of which 1 refer to Cuvier's Ossemens fossiles. 

 2. Ursus ferox^ Lewis and Clark, Ursus cinereus, Encycl. 3. 

 Ursus americanus, Pallas Spic. Zool.fasc. XIV. 4. Ursus marl- 

 timus^ Pallas Spic. Zool. XIV. tab. 1 . 5. Ursus labiatusy 

 Blainville, nouv. Bulletin de la Soc. Philom, 1817. Bradypus 

 ursinus, Shaw, Gen. Zool. torn. 1. part 1. pj. 47. Prochilus, lUiger 

 Prod. p. 109. 6. * Ursus Malai/anus, Raffles, Tr. Linn. Soc. 

 XIII. p. 254. 7. Ursus Thibeianus, Cuv. Ossem, foss. 4. p. 



* M. Cuvier, in adopting the specific name of Malayanus as a systematic 

 denomination, employs in his Ossemens fossiles the French name of " Qurs 

 de Java." But it appears very clearly that he has been led into a mistake 

 regarding the native country of the Malayan bear, by having the skull of it 

 forwarded to him from Java. The Malayan bear had not been discovered 

 in Java at my departure from that Island in 1819. And I have not been inr 

 formed that the Dutch naturalists have since found this animal. It is there- 

 fore highly probable that the skull described by M. Cuvier was derived from 

 Sumatra, where it is very abundant, although he received it by way of Java. 

 This is a case therefore in which a topical name is erroneously applied and 

 cannot be retained. 



The employment of names taken from the countries where .animals are 

 found, or have been discovered, is a constant theme of discussion and declam- 

 ation with Continental naturalists ; and it has been applied very recently with 

 little " consideration''^ to myself. M. Temminck, in the 4^ Liv. of his *' Mono- 

 graphies de Mammalogie," in describing a species of Felis, expresses himself 

 thus: " Si j' 'ai donne un autre nom h ce Chat que celui de Felis javenensis, 

 sous lequel M. Horsfield en a public la description, c' est que, de nos jours, 

 il ne conyient plus de suivre cette mani(^re excessivement vicieuse que les na- 



