1897.] BltTE BEAU OF TIBET. 417 



that the Black Bear (whether one or more forms are recognized is 

 immaterial) is decidedly different from all the members of the 

 U. arctus group. 



The feature which strikes me as the most remarkable in his 

 paper is the recognition of three distinct species of the Brown Bear 

 group as inhabiting Alaska alone— one being from Kadiak Island, 

 the second fromTalaitat Bay, and the third from the coast near Sitka. 

 Now when we take into consideration the lai'ge sir.e of these animals 

 and the circumstance that Carnivora are generally in the habit of 

 wandering over wide tracts of country, it appears to me impossible 

 to have three distinct species inhabiting such a limited area, 

 although there may be grounds for regarding the island form as 

 separable from those inhabiting the mainland. In the separation 

 of the American Bears, Dr. Merriam relies very largely on differ- 

 ences in the skull and cheek-teeth ; but it appears to me that too 

 much importance has been attached to such points of difference 

 both by himself and Gray. A remarkable instance of this is 

 afforded by the case of the so-called Myrmarctos eversmanni, to 

 which Gray refers one of the skulls figured by Middeudorff as 

 U, arctos, var. hermgiana- this skull coming from Kamschatka, 

 where the typical form of that Bear dwells. And to beUeve that 

 there are two closely allied Bears in Kamschatka seems to me 

 an absolute impossibility. I cannot help agreeing with Dr. Schiirff 

 that when we find Bear-skulls from the same district showing con- 

 siderable differences from one another, we must attribute such differ- 

 ences either to individual or sexual variation, or to age \ Similarly, 

 we may find among the Bears of Europe some individuals with long 

 limbs, high foreheads, and elongated muzzles, whereas in others 

 from the same district the limbs are shorter and stouter, the fore- 

 head broader and flatter, and the muzzle shorter. And surely such 

 differences cannot be regarded as of specific, or even subspecific, 

 value. On the other hand, when all the Bears of one particular 

 district differ in one or more characters from those inhabiting the 

 neighbouring regions, specific or subspecific differences may fairly 

 be claimed. 



Adaiitting, then, that there are certain differences to be found 

 among the members of the U. arctus group inhabiting different 

 areas, the next question is whether these should be regarded as of 

 specific or subspecific value. It may fairly be allowed that the 

 question is not of very much importauce one way or the other, and 

 also that it is one in which scarcely any two observers are likely to 

 agree. All are, however, I believe in accord as to the close alliance 

 between the Bears of this group. And an important point to my 

 mind — though it is one which others will probably deem worthy of 

 little consideration — is that the Pleistocene Brown Bear of Europe, 

 according to Busk, is neai-er to the American Grizzly than to the 

 typical existing Brown Bear. If this be true, it points to the 



' In the case of the type of Mip-marctos eversmanni the difference is due to 

 immaturity alone. 



