504 Dr. Eiiiar Lonnbero- on a neio 



iD 



premolars^ as in the arctos group^ with the much increased 

 size of the molars as in the speloeus group. 



In connection with the great size of the teeth stands also 

 the shortness of the interval between the alveolar rims of 

 the canine and /?4, which in the present specimen is only 

 28*5 mm. Considering the fact that this animal v^as not 

 very young, this shortness appears very remarkable. In a 

 mandible (PI. IV. fig. 2) of a Brown Bear, from Sweden, of 

 equal length, the corresponding distance is 42 mm. In 

 another specimen it sinks to about 35 mm., but, so far as I 

 am aware, never goes beyond this latter measurement, so 

 that the difference, even allowing for individual variation, is 

 sufficiently great. 



The shape of the whole mandible is also different from 

 that of a recent Brown Bear. This difference consists of 

 the more equal depth of ramus horizontalis along its whole 

 length, and especially in the much greater breadth of 

 ramus ascendens. This is illustrated by the following 

 measurements : — 



The fossil Eecent 



mandible sptcimen 



(tigs. 3 & 4). (fig. 2). 



Total length from back of condyle. . 238 mm. 237 mm. 



Least height at diastema 44 „ 40 ,, 



Height below middle of m-i 53 „ 51 „ 



Width of ramus ascendens just 



above p-oc, artic 78 „ 63 „ 



The lower surface oi processus angularis is much broader 

 and flatter than in a Brown Bear of similar size. The 

 different markings indicating the insertion of the muscula- 

 ture are very strongly developed, and this, together with the 

 broad proc. coronoideus, etc.^ indicates that this Bear was 

 provided with a very powerful masticatory musculature. 

 This, again, and the large molars with their tuberculated 

 crowns give a hint that this Bear was even less carni- 

 vorous than the Brown Bear of the present time. Its diet 

 must have been more omnivorous, or rather herbivorous, 

 because the structure of the dentition must stand in 

 connection with its mode of life. 



So far as I can find out, this Bear is so well differentiated 

 from other fossil as well as recent Bears that it must be 

 regarded as constituting at least a separate subspecies, and 

 it may thus be called Ursus arctos nucifragus. The latter 

 name will be further explained below. 



Most probably a renewed examination of subfossil bear- 

 remains will prove that the same race may at one time have 

 occurred in England and elsewhere in Europe. 



