•il6 MR. E. LTDEKKEK ox THE [Apr. 6, 



since to suggest that they might be regarded as specifically the 

 same, so far as dental and cranial characters are concerned." Later 

 on in the same paper it is stated, in reference to remains of a Bear 

 from the Gibraltar bone-caverns, " that the preponderance of its 

 characters is in favour of its being closely related to U. fossilis sive 

 priscns, or to a form intermediate betxA'een that and U. arcfos var. 

 isabellinus." Although I confess to great difficulty in distinguish- 

 ing between the teeth of Old World and American Brown Bears, I 

 think it Aiill be admitted that, if we trust Mr. Busk's conclusions, 

 the Pleistocene Brown Bear of Europe must have been the common 

 ancestor of the existing Brown Bears of both the Eastern and 

 Western Hemispheres. 



Passing over certain other \vriters, I have next to mention that 

 in 1881 Fitzinger \ if I understand him rightly, came to the con- 

 clusion that most of the so-called species of Brown Bears described 

 from Europe and Asia were mere colour-phases or other varieties 

 of U. arcttis. He, however, recognized the so-called " halsband " 

 Bear — the U. collaris of F. Cuvier — as a distinct species, inhabit- 

 ing Kamschatka and Siberia. And he regarded the " golden "' 

 or " silver " Bear of Eui-ope as a subspecies, under the name 

 of U. arcfus aureus; considering U. formica nus of Eversmann 

 (=U. longirostris, Schinz, and Myrmarctos eversmanni. Gray) as 

 inseparable from this variety. 



Eight years later Dr. E. Schai'ff ^ in a paper on the skull-variation 

 of U. arctus, came to the conclusion that Myrmarctos eversmanni 

 is only a variety of the former species, with which he also identi- 

 fied U. syriacus, U. isahellinus, and U. piscator. With regard 

 to U. syriacus and U. isahellinus, the same view is held by 

 Mr. Blanford \ but Mr. W. L. Sclater ' regards them as together 

 forming a distinct species, and uses the latter name. 



This will suffice for the Old World Brown Bears, and I have now 

 to quote two papers referring to those of the New World, in which 

 totally opposite views are expressed. In the first of these, Mr. A. 

 E.Brown ° considers that U. ccmericanus, U. cinnamomeus, U. lufeoJus, 

 and U. horribilis are nothing more than varieties of U. a reins, the first 

 and second being more distinct than is the last. On the other hand. 

 Dr. C. H. Merriam '', comes to the conclusion that not only are 

 all the North-American Bears (exclusive of the Polar Bear) distinct 

 from those of the Old World, but that the Black Bears, of which 

 four forms are recognized, should bs separated subgenerically from 

 the members of the U. arctus group. Of the latter no less than five 

 species and one or two subspecies are recognized as inhabiting the 

 North American continent. From the structure of the lower 

 carnassial tooth, Dr. Merriam seems to have made out pretty clearly 



» SB. Ak. Wieu, vol. Ixxxiv. pp. 1-22 (1881). 



- Archiv f. Nat. 1889, vol. i. pp. 244-267. 



^ Fauna of Brit. India, Mamm. p. 194 (1888). 



* Cat. Mamm. Ind. Mus. pt. ii. p. 302 (1891). 



' Proc. Ac. Philadelphia, 1894, pp. 119-129. 



° Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. x. i)p. 65-83 (1896). 



