[JESUS. -; 



Iii 1810 Goldfuss ' published a memoir in which lie attempted to distinguish a 

 third species of fossil bears, named U. priscus. This was accepted by Ouvier. 2 

 Meanwhile the fossil bones of bears were being discovered in several localities in 

 England, notably in the caves of Kirkdale, Yorkshire (whence Buckland 3 described 

 rare fragments), and Oreston, near Plymouth (Clift and Whidbey). 4 



In 1825 Ouvier in the third edition of ' Ossemens Fossiles ' reverted' to the 

 conclusion that the forms called If. spel&us and arctoideus were only varieties of 

 the same species. De Blainville, however, remarked (! that Cuvier's unfortunate 

 establishment of a new species on insufficient evidence gave an impulse to this 

 practice, which was exaggerated in the hands of less skilful palaeontologists. In 

 proof of this he referred to Croizet and Jobert 7 (1828) who believed they could 

 recognise U. cultridens by a single canine, and sought to establish a new species 

 U. arvernensis on a fragment of the anterior part of the skull, a humerus and 

 other isolated bones. The work of M. de Serres s is an instance of the same 

 method. 



P. C. Schmerling 9 (1833), although he corrected certain mistakes of Ouvier, 

 was led by his example to establish several new species on material more or less 

 incomplete. He concluded that no less than five species of bears lived in the 

 Liege district — viz., U. sjpelaeus and arctoideus, Blum., U. prisons, Goldf., and two 

 new species, V. giganteus and leodiensis. In 1842 Owen 10 described a tine skull of 

 the brown bear from Manea fen, Cambridge. 



With the increase of knowledge and facilities for comparison, the extreme 

 difficulty of recognising specific distinctions between the various bears began to be 

 apparent, with a tendency to group together several forms which had previously 

 been regarded as distinct species. This tendency was first shown by de Blainville 11 

 who in 1811 gave a detailed and critical account of the different kinds of fossil 

 bears with splendid illustrations. Further reference to his conclusions follows 

 later, but it may be mentioned here that he considered all the bears, living and 

 fossil, found in Europe to belong to one species, but thought there were two races 

 of fossil bears, a larger race the male of which was represented by I', giganteus and 

 JJ. spelseus major and the female by U. arctoideus and /'. leodiensis, and a smaller 

 race in which the male was represented by / : . spelseus miunr and the female by 

 /'. priscus. He considered that a second small species was represented by Ursus 



1 ' Verkandl. kaiserl. Leopold. -Karolin. Akad. dor Naturforscker,' .\, 2, p. 200. 



'- ' Oss. Foss.,' ed. 3, 1825, iv, p. 380. 



3 ' Eeliquise diluvianae,' ed. 2, \>. 17; and • Phil. Trans.,' 1S22, p. 171. 



I ' Phil. Trans.,' cxiii, 1823, p. 88. 5 Tom. iv, p. 358. 



II ' Ostcograpkie,' Carnassiers, p. 50. 7 'Eeeh. Oss. foss. Puy de Dome,' |>. 628. 

 8 'Bull. univ. des Sci. Nat.,' 1830, xii, no. 19, p. 161. 



'•' 'Reckerckes Oss. loss. Caverci.es do Liege.' 



III 'Rep. Brit. Assoc.,' 1842, p. G'J. u ' Osteograpkie,' Carnassiers, p. 38. 



