E.. T. Newton—Pre-Glacial Mammalia. 153 
which seems to be the only “Forest Bed” specimen which could 
be referred to C. vulpes, might possibly have belonged to a small 
Dog. However, it seemed better not to remove these names from 
the list, but to indicate their doubtful character by a note of in- 
terrogation placed after the species. 
Hyena spelea is mentioned by Mr. A. Bell (Geol. Assoc. 1871) as 
occurring in the “Forest Bed”; but as I cannot get the slightest 
clue to any specimen from this horizon which might be referred to 
this genus, it becomes necessary to omit the name from the list. 
Machairodus sp.—There is no doubt that the tooth from the 
*‘ Forest Bed” described by Prof. Lankester (see Gzon. Maa. 1869, 
Vol. VI. p. 440, Pl. XVI.) was correctly referred by him to the 
genus Machairodus; but I cannot quite agree with those authors 
who have thought fit to place it in their lists as I. latidens. This 
tooth when perfect must have been much more elongated than the 
specimen from “ Kent’s Hole,” figured by Prof. Owen (Brit. Foss. . 
Mamm. p. 180, fig. 69); and although it approaches more nearly 
in this respect to some other specimens from the same place, it 
seems to me to resemble more closely the continental species M. 
cultridens. I hesitate, however, on such slender evidence, to refer 
the specimen to either species. 
Ursus.—No less than four species of Bears have been recorded as 
occurring in the “Forest Bed,” and, if we include Dr. Falconer’s 
MS. of Ursus priscus, there would be five species. This multiplicity 
of names has arisen, not from the number of different species which 
have been found, but from the fact that authors have not been agreed 
as to the species to which the specimens should be referred ; and 
others again, in compiling lists, have accepted all the names without 
eliminating those which were merely synonyms. ‘This confusion 
has partly arisen from the fact that, with one or two notable excep- 
tions, the lists of “Forest Bed’? mammals have been published 
without any clue to the specimens upon which the specific deter- 
minations rested. After a careful examination of all the Bear-remains 
from the “Forest Bed,” of the existence of which I have been 
able to obtain any information, I am led to the conclusion that they 
indicate only two species: the majority and the best-preserved 
among them being clearly referable to Ursus speleus; while one 
maxilla, on account of the size of its teeth, evidently belonged to a 
second species, and is referred with some doubt to U. ferox-fossilis, 
Busk (= fossilis, Goldf.). I have hitherto been unable to find in 
any collection a specimen which could be referred to Ursus arvern- 
ensis. This will be as much a matter of surprise to other 
paleontologists as it has been to myself. Prof. Busk has most kindly 
examined all thé specimens with me (that is, all of which I have 
any knowledge), and permits me to say, that he agrees with the 
above determinations, and that neither of these specimens can be 
referred to U. arvernensis. However, Prof. Busk was under the 
impression that the latter species had been obtained from the 
“Forest Bed,” and that there was a specimen in the Norwich 
Museum. Mr. J. Gunn, F.G.S., of Norwich, assures me that he has no 
