120 MAMMALS. 



cannot go along ^\'ith him in doing so, for to nie it is plain that ho fias distinguished between 

 them, because he has given figures of both as sub- varieties ; and his error, if any, has been in 

 estimating the differences as of less value than Dr. Gray thinks they deserve, rather than not 

 perceiving them at all. As to the distinctions between the Ant Bear and the Carrion Bear, without 

 going so far as Pallas, who long ago noticed the supposed distinction, and disposed of it briefly as 

 being supported " iiidlo solido argumento," * I should prefer to reserve my judgment. Fortunately no 

 immediate decision is called for on the question. "We understand the nature of the differences, and 

 hovr we name them is of less consequence. 



Similar difficulties occur with regard to several of the other species. Many naturalists look upon 

 the Syrian Bear and the Ursus isabellinus as mere varieties of each other. They are nearly 

 identical in appearance, but the skull is different. So perhaps may the Thibet Bear (Ursus 

 TORQUATUs) and the Japan Bear (Ursus JArojiicus) prove to be. If we might judge of the ex- 

 treme East from what we see in the extreme West of the great European and Asiatic continent, 

 we should have little hesitation in supposing the species not to be distinct. Japan lies on the 

 east very much to the mainland as Britain lies on the west, and we know that, in all probability, 

 there is not a single species of any animal found in Britain which is not also foimd in greater 

 plenty on the Continent ; and the same may be said of plants, with the exception of one or two 

 extraordinary instances of ^imerican species, whose presence gives rise to such speculations as those 

 we have already described. Tetrad Scoticus, Primula Scotica, and other species, so specifically 

 named under the supposition that they were peculiar to Scotland, are now known to be mis- 

 nomers ; and any species which have been found in Britain and not on the Continent are minute 

 minims which in all probability have merely not yet been detected there. Whether the case is 

 the same with Japan and its adjoining continent is not known. There may be some specialty 

 in its ancient connexions and separations which have produced a different state of things. Tem- 

 minck and Siebold's work on the faun:i and flora of Japan discloses a number of undescribed species ; 

 but I lay no great stress upon that, because these may all yet be found in the neighbouring 

 continental regions when they are sufficientl}^ explored. Some of them, however, have an affinity 

 with American typos ; in the case before us, Dr. Sclater, dealing only with it descriptively, remarks 

 that " the Japanese Bear seems almost intermediate between Ursus torquatus (the Indian species) 

 and Ursus AMERiCANUs."t 



Tcnnninck records, apparently without hesitation, the Grizzly Bear (Ursus fekox) as inhabiting 

 Jczo and Krafto, the northern islands of Japan. A chief objection to its being admitted as a 

 Japanese species, is that it has been thus recorded without doubt. The doing so implies want 

 of careful examination ; for the disregard of the doubts which were sure to arise regarding its 

 identity, infers as little care in ascertaining that they were unfounded. It seems also verj^ j)ro- 

 bable that Temminck may have made a mistake, for he mentions it as found of various colours, 

 brown, yellow, and red, — colours which occur in the varieties of the Old-world species, U. arctos, but 

 not in the American " Grizzly." 



On only one small part of Africa is any Bear found, viz., in Mount Atlas, and it seems by no 

 means improbable that this may be a modification, if not the descendant, of the extinct species, 

 of which remains arc now found in Spain. It belongs to the genus named Helarctos ; or 

 rather, I should say, it belongs to the artificial section so named. Arboreal, as distinguished from 



* Palla:;, " Zoogniphia Eusso-Asiatica." t Sclater, in " Proc. Zoolog. Society," 18G2, p. 261. 



