Bear from the Cromer Forest-bed. 205 
sixteen mandibular rami of varying degrees of completeness, 
two maxillee with molars, numerous odd teeth, and a number 
of more or less perfect limb-bones. The result of my exami- 
nation of these remains is that I have come to the conclusion 
that the common bear of the Cromer Forest-bed is specifically 
distinct from the typical Ursus speleus, though it certainly 
belongs to the same (Speleearctine) group, and may, perhaps, 
represent the ancestral form. I suggest that this new species 
should be called Ursus savini, sp. n., in honour of Mr, Savin 
of Cromer, whose untiring zeal in collecting the Forest-bed 
fossils is well known. 
I propose to take as the type-specimen the right mandibular 
ramus (16448) from Bacton described and figured by Owen 
in ¢ British Fossil Mammals and Birds’ (1846), p. 89, fig. 35 ¢ 
(p. 106) ; also by H.'T. Newton in ‘ Vertebrata of the Forest- 
bed Series” (1882), pl. i. figs. 1, la. The fourth premolar 
is also figured by Reynolds in ‘ British Pleistocene Mammalia’ 
(Mon. Pal. Soc. 1906), pl. vi. fig. 6c. 
The dimensions of this specimen (in millimetres) are :— 
etre bay OL [RWG ber ops ora ode tenes stele gaa ckotous xia sips. sie 260 
Depth of jaw between m,. and m3 ........-+-. 57 
Height at coronoid process ...........+.0+ 00> 112 
(henethy of diastemas . 5 siseces fos elds ene app. 87 
M;, length 24, width 16. 
IC ee, 20s ta3, © LO: 
aS R20 R da, bes 
Re AG ee 710 
- ; 
Length of molar series (JJj—M3) .......+0055 75 
Length from ms; to canine ......0..05+050. app. 125 
Canine: long diameter of base of crown ...... 25 
” short ” ” pe) jePcoce 17 
It is not denied that U. savini, though smaller, resembles 
U. speleus in some important points—e. g., (1) in the loss of 
the anterior premolars (in one case pm, is present) ; (2) in 
the tendency towards the complication of the crown of pm, by 
the development of an inner cusp, which, however, is by no 
means always present ; (3) in the complication of the crowns 
of the molars through the development of numerous accessory 
tubercles. On the other hand, it differs in (1) the relatively 
smaller size of the cheek-teeth in proportion to the jaw; (2) in 
the shorter diastema between pm, and the canine; (3) in 
the more slender form of the latter tooth, especially in the 
region of its root; (4) the smaller size of the posterior lobe 
of the last lower molar compared to the anterior lobe. 
The degree of complication of pm, is very variable ; in 
