OF THE CANIDAH AND URSID_E. 939 
title, even from Gray, beike U. thibetanus. For instance, we 
have Thalarctos (usually altered to Thalassarctos) for mar itimus ; 
Ursus for arctos and its allies, Danis for horribilis, Huarctos for 
americanus, Tremarctos for ornatus, Helarctos for malayannus: and 
Melursus for ursinus. Melursus seems to be admitted on all 
hands as valid; but probably no two existing zoologists could be 
found to agree stort the others, though a majority would most 
likely favour the severance of patireios from Ursus. Flower 
and Lydekker (* Mammalia Living and Extinct,’ pp. 558-560, 
1891), for example, gave full generic value to Melina g 
Ursus, and divided the lait. into the Thalarctine section for 
maritimus ; the Ursine for arctos, horribilis, americanus, thibetanus, 
ornatus and their allies, and the elaxetine section for malayonus. 
Max Weber (Die Stiug. p- 539, 1904) admitted Ursus, with 
Thalarctos as a subgenus, JHellerwetion and Melursus, hat only 
diagnosed the latter; and Beddard (* Mammalia,’ pp. 442-443) 
allowed Ursus and Melursus, dismissing Vhalarctos as a “quite 
unnecessary ” genus. 
Trouessart (Cat. Mamm. Suppl. pp. 178-182, 1904) followed 
Flower and Lydekker in the main, but gave subgeneric value to 
the sections of Ur ‘sus, adding Euarctos ie them, aad accorded full 
generic status to Tnemacinting | for the 8. Aumentieate Bears. 
Finally, Matthew and Osborn (‘The Age of Mammals,’ p- 530, 
1910) adopted the four genera, Ursus for the Grizzly, Brown, and 
American Black Bears, : and, I presume, for the Himalayan and 
Malayan as well, Talanaios for the Polar Bear, 7vemarctos for 
the Andean or Spectacled Bear, and Melursus for the Sloth 
Bear. 
The divergence of opinion with respect to the status of such 
species as maritumus, americanus, ornatus, and malayanus, in 
dicated by these classifications, suggests that the characters used 
for their elevation to the elk oo genera or subgenera cannot be 
very well marked *. But in view a the conclusions arising from 
the facts established in this paper, the one inter esting point ABOUE 
which these authors seem to be in accord, differ as they may 
about the four species just quoted, is that thihetanus is inseparable 
from Ursus, even in the most restricted sense assigned to that 
term. 
Beyond stating that the soles of the feet are more hairy in 
the Polar Bear, ‘the authors above quoted made no systematic 
use of the extremities, although Gray had previously pointed out 
some distinguishing featur es presented by them. He detected, 
* The classifications of 'Frouessart and of Osborn & Matthews are, however. mere 
lists of names, no reasons for the arrangement adopted being given. It would he 
interesting to know why these authors, alone of those quoted, give full generic value 
to ormatus. 
+ Considering the wide field covered by his work, - Gray was head and 
shoulders in front of many of his predecessors and successors as a sy stematist in the 
strict sense of the word. One is tuo apt to allow his mistakes, arising trom his 
curious limitations, to obscure one’s regard for the perspicacity he undoubtedly 
possessed in the detection of structural differences, 
Proc. Zoon. Soc.—1914, No. LXIII. 63 
