URSUS SPEL.EUS. 95 
it is most probably, therefore, as Dr. Schmerling* and Pro- 
fessor de Blainville + conjecture, an accidental anomaly. 
But the differential characters which both the imperforate 
and perforate humeri of the great Cave Bear present, when 
compared with those of any recent species, cannot be re- 
conciled by the hypothesis, that these are merely degenerat- 
ed descendants of the Ursus speleus. 
The nearly entire humerus of the bear from the Cave of 
Paviland{ presents all the characters of that of the Ursus 
speleus above described. 
The ulna of the Cave Bear (Ursus speleus), compared 
with one of the same length from the Polar Bear, is less 
straight, being more convex towards the radius; is thicker, 
particularly at the anterior part of the shaft ; the ridge on 
the outside of the distal end of the bone is more produced ; 
the styloid process is more pointed; and the concavity on 
the inner side of the proximal articular surface is deeper. 
The ulna of the Bear from the freshwater deposit near 
Bacton (fig. 27, a), as well as a larger ulna from Kent’s 
Hole, agree with that of the Ursus speleus from the 
German caves. 
The upper extremity of the radius of the Cave Bear, 
from a bone-cave in the Mendips, and the gnawed shaft and 
lower end of a radius from Kent’s Hole, match the largest 
specimens from the German caverns in size, and equally 
demonstrate the oval form of the upper articular surface 
which rotates on the humerus and ulna, and the larger 
oblique oval surface at the distal end, which distinguish 
the radius of the great extinct Bear from the corresponding 
bone in the great feline animals. 
The scapho-lunar bone, the os magnum with its charac- 
* Loc. cit. p. 130. + Loc, cit. p. 71. 
+ Buckland, Reliquiz Diluviane, p. 82. 
