ON BRITISH FOSSIL MAMMALIA. 65 



less than in either the Cave Bear ( U. spelceus) or White Bear ( U. maritimus), 

 and it contains two small and simple premolars in specimens, which from 

 the worn state of the molar teeth have belonged to older individuals than 

 those to which the skulls of the Cave Bear have belonged, which present no 

 trace of premolars. 



The lower jaw of the Ursus spelceus differs from that of the Ursus ferox 

 in the greater breadth of the posterior molar as compared with its length, 

 and in the greater convexity of the inferior contour of the ramus of the 

 jaw, in which latter circumstance it differs, though in a somewhat less degree, 

 from the Black Bear of Europe ( Ursus arctos). 



The lower jaw of the Grisly Bear, in differing by the larger size of its 

 molar teeth, especially of the last molar from the Polar Bear, in the same 

 degree differs less from the Ursus spelceus. 



The Ursine remains from the Paviland Cavern, and some of those from 

 Kent's Hole, are unquestionably identical with the Ursus spelceus. 



To this species, also, I should refer, on account of the size of the canines 

 and the extent of the diastema between these and the large molars, the 

 anterior part of the lower jaw from Kent's Hole ; notwithstanding the presence 

 of a small simple-fanged premolar in that diastema : since a few exceptional 

 instances have occurred of the persistence of these teeth in lower jaws of 

 the Ursus spelceus from the German and Belgian caverns. 



The fossil humerus from Kent's Hole likewise manifests all the characters 

 of that of the Ursus spelceus ; characters which appear to me to be as well 

 marked as those which can be pointed out as distinguishing the same bones 

 in any other two species of one genus. 



Cuvier, as is well known, conceived that he had met with two very distinct 

 forms of the humerus, belonging to equally gigantic extinct species of Cave 

 Bears. 



" On trouve deux sortes d'humerus, tous deux appartenant a des ours, et 

 cependant fort differens l'un de l'autre, John Hunter les a deja represented 

 (Phil. Trans. 1794, pi. xx.) ; mais depuis on n'a insiste dans aucun ouvrage 

 sur leur difference. La deuxieme sorte d'humerus de ces cavernes, pi. xxv. 

 fig. 4, 5, 6, et 7, m'est comme par un echantillon bien entier que notre Mu- 

 seum possede, par la gravure de Hunter, et par le dessin que je dois a feu 

 Adrien Camper d'une portion qui en comprenoit les trois quarts inferieurs. 

 Elle differe eminemment de la pr6cedente par un trou perce au dessus du 

 condyle interne pour le passage de l'artere cubitale. ( Voy. a, fig. 4 et 5)." — 

 Ossemens Fossiles, 4to. 1823, torn. iv. p. 362. 



Whatever may be deemed the value of the character of the perforation of 

 the inner condyle, I can affirm that it derives no accession from the other 

 differences manifested by the figure in Hunter's memoir, which Cuvier sup- 

 posed to be of a fossil Bear ; that figure having been, in fact, taken from the 

 humerus of an old Polar Bear, inserted in the plate (pi. xx. Phil. Trans. 

 1794.), and placed above the figure of the fossil humerus in order to illus- 

 trate the differences between the recent and fossil species. The bone of the 

 Polar Bear was placed by Hunter in the same drawer with two humeri of the 

 Cave Bear from Gailenreuth, which it exceeds in size, and which are the 

 identical specimens alluded to in the following passage of Hunter's Memoir: — 

 " These are two ossa humeri rather of less size than those of the recent White 

 Bear." Hunter does not allude to any other differences, probably intending 

 these to be illustrated by the figures. These, in fact, show that the humerus 

 of the White Bear is broader at both extremities, and thicker in proportion to 

 its length. The supinator ridge forms an angle instead of being continued 

 downwards in a gentle convex curve ; the internal condyle is much thicker 



1842. f 



