189?,] BLUE BEAR OF TIBET. 415 



the Catalogue of the Zoological Collections of H. M. Prejevalsky, 

 p. 9 (St. Petersburg, 1887), reference to a Tibetan Bear under the 

 name of U. lagomyarius, which is probably the present form. And, 

 if this name has been properly published, it will probably stand 

 for the species, if the terra pruinosus is to be su[)erseded. 



A very noticeable feature in the British Museum skin is the 

 curious approximation which it makes to the type of coloration 

 distinctive of ^luropas inelanoleucus of the same region. This 

 is especially shown by the pure white band on the hind nape, 

 followed by the black interscapular patch ; and less markedly by 

 the tendency to blackness on the ears and forehead. Is it too 

 much to consider that this type of coloration has been produced 

 in both animals by similar euvironment? I think not. Of what 

 advantage to its owner may be the peculiar coloration of ^luropu» 

 has never been determined. It may be suggested tliat in a forest 

 country where snow lies deep in the winter, the black shoulder- 

 stripe and limbs with the white of the rest of the body would be 

 very inconspicuous among dark tree-stems ; but such an explana- 

 tion affords no clue to the advantage of this very remarkable type of 

 coloration in siunmer, when we may presume snow would have 

 disappeared from the forests. Moreover, it is not certain that 

 both forms do not dwell above the forest level. 



I now come to the very difficult question whether the brown and 

 greyish Bears of the Northern Hemisphere form more than one 

 species. Very different views are held on this subject by different 

 Avriters, and as the literatui-e is extensive, I shall not attempt to 

 give a summary of what has been written. A. iew exam])les of 

 different views may, however, be advantageously cited. Midden- 

 dorff ', in a long essay ou th(:> subject, came to the couclusion that 

 all the Bears of the U. arcttis group in both tlie Easteru and Western 

 Hemisphere were merely varieties of but one species. (In the other 

 hand, Gray ' not only split them up into a number of species, 

 but actually separated some of them generically. Perhaps the 

 most remarkable featui-e in his work is the separation of a Brown 

 Bear from Norway, as Myt^marctos eversmanni ■', from the Brown 

 Bear of Sweden, which is regarded as referable to the typical 

 U. aretus. Moreover, he identifies one of the Kamschatkan 

 skulls described by Middendorff as IT. aretus var. heringiana with 

 the former, whereas the other is regarded as referable to a sub- 

 species (collaris) of U. aretus. 



In 1877, the late Mr. George Busk ' referred all the living 

 Old World Brown Bears to varieties of U. aretus. An important 

 statement in this paper regarding the fossil Pleistocene Brown Bear 

 of Europe (6^. fossi'fe of Goldfuss) runs as follows : — " This form has 

 appeared to me to coincide so very closely with the existing U. fero.v 

 or horribilis of North America, that I was induced some years 



1 Sibir. Reise (1851). 



^ See Oat. Oaruiv. Brit. Mus. (1869). 



" This is founded on a young skeleton in the Museum. 



' Trans. Zool. Soo. vol. x. p. 53 et seq. 



\ 



