The Paleontographical Society. » 135 
1. Professor S. H. Reynolds’ monograph on the Pleistocene Bears 
is a welcome contribution to our knowledge of the fossil remains of 
a group of animals widely distributed over the temperate and colder 
regions of the Northern Hemisphere, and very well represented in the 
Pleistocene deposits and cave fauna of this country and Ireland. 
The author records 38 localities in peat, brickearth, and river deposits 
which have yielded Bear-remains. Of these only one spot, the brick- 
earth of Barrington, near Cambridge, has furnished undoubted remains 
ot Ursus speleus. Four other doubtful localities are recorded ; one of 
these, Ilford, may possibly prove, like Barrington, to yield remains of 
this more ancient type of Cave-bear. 
Eleven localities are cited in which the ‘ Brown-bear’ ( Ursus arctos) 
has been met with, and awe others are doubtfully referred to this 
species. 
The ‘great Grizzly Bear’ (Ursus horribilis) is recorded from 14 
localities and from 7 others doubtfully. 
Our Limestone caves and fissures in 23 localities have yielded 
genuine remains of Ursus speleus and 3 others doubtfully ; whilst 
15 caves have yielded Ursus arctos, 14 Ursus horribilis, and in 5 other 
localities the species of bear appears to be doubtful. 
The author discusses very fully the difficulties which the comparative 
anatomist encounters in his endeavours to separate specifically the 
various bears of the arctos type, and cites the opinion of A. E. Brown 
(Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 1894, p. 119) that ‘‘a critical survey 
of the cranial and dental characters shows little that is constant, 
except variation, and absolutely forces the conclusion that there is not 
one character sufficiently stable and uniform to be of specific value. 
The European bear and the grizzly run into one another so regularly 
that, except in extreme cases, there is no possibility of distinction 
apart from geographical considerations.” 
‘The differences,” writes Professor Reynolds, ‘‘ separating the cave 
bear ( Ursus speleus) from the others are certainly greater. than those 
between the different bears of the arctos type, but, unless perhaps in 
the case of pm. 4, it is doubtful whether they are sufficiently marked 
and constant to afford specitic distinctions. Certainly all the species 
of Pleistocene bears are closely allied and tend to run into one another, 
and it is perhaps not a matter of much practical importance whether 
they are grouped as one, two, or three species. On the whole it has 
seemed most satisfactory to recognise the specific distinction of 
U. ‘speleus, while grouping all the other Pleistocene bears as 
UW. arctos.”” . (p.:32.) 
2. Dr. R. H. Traquair continues his monograph on -the Fishes of 
the Old Red Sandstone of Britain, and deals with the curious genus 
Bothriolepis, a restored outline by the author of the dorsal ‘surface of 
L. hydrophila being given on p. 125, and five plates, which furnish the 
details of a number of historical specimens, including those from the 
famous Hugh Miller Collection. 
3. Mr. Henry Woods continues his most desirable work on the 
Cretaceous Lamellibranchia of England, dealing in the present. part 
with the Pinnide, Astartide, Carditide, . Crassatellitide, and 
Cyprinide. .The 8 plates, by Mr. T. A. Brock, illustrating these 
