DOGS AND BEARS. 193 



period which is termed by geologists the Pliocene. 

 Now if we ask ourselves in what respects this bear-like 

 creature differed from any modern bear, we must 

 answer that while its skull and limb-bones have the 

 massive and bulky characters of existing bears, yet we 

 find certain features showing that we are at least one 

 step away from these modern specialised types. Thus, 

 to take one instance from the limbs, the bone forming 

 the elbow has an extremely prominent termination, or 

 " funny-bone," and in this respect resembles the corres- 

 ponding bone of the dogs and differs from that of the 

 bears. The teeth, however, show us in a much more 

 unmistakable manner what a marked approach this 

 animal makes to the dogs. Thus, the " flesh-tooth " in 

 both jaws has a long and cutting crown totally unlike 

 that of the bears ; having, indeed, the same structure as 

 in the dogs (Figs. 57, 60), although of a rather more com- 

 plex type than in any existing species. Moreover, the 

 two grinders of the upper jaw, instead of presenting 

 long oblong crowns, have nearly square crowns in most 

 species, while in one very peculiar species from India 

 they tend to assume the triangular 

 form of the dog's grinders. In the 

 small species, of which the upper 

 grinders are shown in wood-cut 

 58, the crowns are longer than 



, , . , FIG. 58. The two left upper 



USUal, although much Shorter tliail grinders of an extinct Bear 



in the true bears. The hyama- 



bear, which rivalled in bulk the huge American grizzly, 



was. therefore, to all intents and purposes, a bear show- 



