QFATBENAEY FAUNA OF GIBEALTAE. 63 



to the side of the head of the tibia, and at about the middle of its length to the shaft 

 of that bone by a very thick mass of callus. The bones, which are comparatively of 

 small size (the distal end of the tibia measuring l"-5 X 2"-7), appear to have suffered 

 compound fracture some time before the death of the animal, and to have become re- 

 united in a very irregular though firm fashion. The consequent distortion is so great, 

 that the transverse axis of the distal articular surface is twisted round about a quarter 

 of a circle ; and as the lower fragments of both bones override the upper to a consider- 

 able extent, the limb must have been shortened as well as distorted. 



It is not easy to understand how a wild predaceous animal could have contrived to 

 maintain the struggle for existence during the long period required to efl'ect even such 

 an imperfect cure, or even afterwards, in such a mutilated condition. The instance 

 would certainly seem to show, at any rate, that sometimes " scevis inter se convenit ursis." 



12. Besides the above, there are several metacarpal and one metatarsal bone, belong- 

 ing to perhaps four individuals, drflFering a good deal, as it would seem, in size and age. 

 These are represented in PI. VI. figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (fig 10 is the fifth metacarpal of 

 Felis pardus). These bones will be afterwards more particularly referred to. 



Notwithstanding the number of these ursine remains, they hardly supply sufficient 

 materials for the determination, with certainty, of the species to which they belong, 

 which must, I fear, in the absence of further evidence, be left in considerable doubt. 



Some of the more important characters by which the existing and fossil species of 

 Bears are distinguished are afforded by the skull and face. No portion of either, with 

 the exception of a fragmentary maxillary, is contained in the Gibraltar collection; 

 and as the remaining parts of most diagnostic value, as the lower jaw and teeth, 

 exhibit characters intermediate, as it were, between U.fossilis siveferox and U. arctos, 

 it appears to me impossible to decide whether the Gibraltar Bear should be referred to 

 the one or the other of those species or, it may be, to a third distinct from either. 



That these remains have no relation whatever to U. spelwus is sufficiently obvious 

 from the dimensions and other characters of the teeth, and notably of the fourth lower 

 premolar and last molar (pm. 4< and m. -3), together with the presence of an open alveolus 

 of the first premolar in all three specimens of the mandible, and also from the size 

 and proportions of the otlier bones, more especially of the metacarpals, metatarsal, and 

 phalanges, which, of all the bones of the skeleton, are perhaps most characteristic of 

 U. spelmus. The Great Cave-Bear may therefore at once be dismissed from considera- 

 tion ; and we may proceed to inquire which of the other known existing or fossilized 

 specimens afford the nearest points of resemblance. 



These species are but few in number, and may, I think, at any rate for paleontolo- 

 gical purposes, be included under the following specific types : — 



1. Ufisus FOSSiLis, Goldfuss. 

 U. prisms, Cuv. 



U.ferowfossiliSjimhi. 

 U. bourguignati, Lartet. 



k2 



