128 Mr. R. I. Pocock on a 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE VII. 



Fiff. 1. ^olochroma prasina spadicocaynpa, c^,p. 111. 



Fig. 2. Hacheosp'du peyithica, J, p. 115. 



Fig. 3. Macaria laguatia, 5 , p. 1-6. 



Fig. 4. Thalassodesjloccusa, (5, p. 121. 



Fig. 5. Phellinodes biapicata, J , p. 108. 



Fig. 6. Prasinocyma rhodocycla, $ , p. 121. 



Fig. 7. Milionia anisochiysa, 2 > P- 127. 



Fig. 8. Hacheospila lugentifcripta, (5, p. 117. 



Fig. 9. Anigozyga charma, d , p. 112. 



PjV/. 10. Prohydata iynita, $ , p. 1 24. 



Fig. 11. lieniithea antigraphci, (S , p- 122. 



-Fz'^. 12. Dysphania porphy7-oides, (S , p. 111. 



J^i/jr. 13. Oospila circmnsessa, J, p. 119, 



Fig. 14. Berta chrysolineata philippina, S > P- 125. 



jp2]$r. 15. Neromia enotes, c? > P- 123. 



Fig. 16. Phrudocentra seiiescens, SiV- •"■l"* 



i^e]^. 17. Pacheospila incBqualis, cS , p. 116. 



J'i^. 18. TIcmithea distinctaria lata, J , p. 123. 



Fig. 19. Neurotoca iiisolens, cT i P- 124. 



Fig, 20. Antharmostes siniplicimargo, J , p. 120. 



i^/^. 21. Comihcena hemictenes, $ , p. 114. 



Fig. 22. Spaniocentra inospcoiia, 5j P- US. 



i^V^. 23. Agathia curvijiniens, S , P- 112- 



Fig. 24. Oospila circinndata striohda, S , P- 118. 



i^i^. 25. Mimandvia cataractce, S , p. 110. 



Fig. 26. Pingasa hihayei austrina, J, p. 111. 



i^^. 27. Hemithea notospila, J, p. 122. 



Fig. 28. Phellinodes leiicoplethes, S n P- 109. 



JF'i^'. 29. BathgcoljJodes torniflorata, S y P- 120. 



TX.— ^ neiv Genus of Ursidse. 

 By R. I. Pocock, F.R.S. 



In 1914 (P.Z.S. p. 940) I poiuted out that mainly by the 

 structure of the feet the existing .species of bears might be 

 referred to the following genera : — Thalnrdus, Ursus, Tre- 

 marctos, Helardos, and Melursus. On the evidence supplied 

 by the feet, two species were assigned to Tremarctos — 

 namely, ornatus, the type of the genus, from the Andes of 

 South America and thibetamis from Central Asia. The latter 

 has been previously and universally referred to the genus 

 Ursus, and was the only well-marked species of the family 

 to escape the gift of a special generic or subgeneric title. 



Subsequent comparison between the skulls of the two 

 species in question convinces me that they cannot con- 

 sistently be ascribed to the same genus. I propose, there- 



