Fiq. 



1. 



Fig. 



2. 



Fin. 



3. 



Fir,. 



4. 



Fig. 



5. 



Fiq. 



6. 



Fiq. 



7. 



Fie,. 



«. 



Fig. 



9. 



Fig. 



10. 



Fig. 



11. 



Fig. 



12. 



496 Mr. "R. Gurney on some British and 



the Oxford jaw is the type, Ursus anglicus magdalenensis, in 

 honour of the College within whose walls it was excavated, 

 and of whose foundation I have been a member for more 

 than a third of a century. \ 



EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES. 



Plate II. 



Lower jaws of Pleistocene bears. 



Jaw from Whitosand Bay, referred to " Ursus arctosy 

 ,, Magdalen CoUeg-e, „ U. anglicus, sp. n. 



Molar range of Whitesand Bear, " U. arctos'^ 

 „ „ Grays „ '' TJ. horrihilis.''^ 



,f „ Magdalen „ U, anglicus^ sp. n. 



Plate III. 

 Condyle and angle from behind; Whitesand Bear. 

 „ „ „ Grays Bear. 



,, „ ,, Magdalen Bear. 



Angle and siibangle from below, AVliitesand Bear. 

 „ „ „ Grays Bear. 



„ „ „ Magdalen Bear. 



,, ,, „ U.fussilis, Goldfuss. 



a., angle of jaw; s., subangle of jaw; c, condyle of jaw. 



XLIX. — Notes on some British and North African Specimens 

 of Apus cancriformis, Schaeffer. By Hobert Gukney, 

 M.A., F.L.S. 



Before proceeding to the subject of this communication, it 

 is unfortunately necessary for me to defend the use of the 

 name Apus for a genus of Crustacea. 



This name has been used for generations as the generic 

 name of the Branchiopod Crustacean Apus cancriformiSj 

 which, from its extreme morphological importance, has figured 

 largely in zoological literature. For this reason, its sup- 

 pression by systematists^ on the ground that its use is not in 

 accordance with the International Kules of Nomenclature, 

 will certainly not be agreed to by writers on general zoo- 

 logical problems, who will no doubt continue to refer to this 

 animal as Aims cancriformis. It can scarcely be to the 

 advantage of Zoology that, in this as in many other instances 

 since these Rules came into force^ the biologist and the 

 systematist should adopt different systems of nomenclature. 



In my opinion, names long in general use should not be 

 changed or suppressed, except for the most cogent reasons 

 and in cases where there is obvious ambiguity. In this case 



