4 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 



arvernensis. He doubted the distinction of the bears of north-western America (i.e. 

 the grizzly bear) from the European species. This view was also accepted by 

 Middendorff (1851), J who concluded that all the bears of the arctos group from 

 both eastern and western hemispheres were varieties of one species. 



On the other hand, Owen in 1840 in his 'British Fossil Mammals and Birds' 

 dealt fully with the British fossil bears, recognising three species, U. spelseus, 

 U. arctos, and U. priscus, Groldf., to which species he attributed a lower jaw from 

 Kent's Cavern. J. A. Wagner 3 also (1851) agreed with Owen in recognising 

 more than one species among the bears of the arctos group and considered 

 de Blainville's views on the subject to be retrogressive. Gray 3 (1804) went 

 farther in the process of subdivision than anyone else, separating the living bears 

 not only into a number of species, but also into several genera. 



The descriptions of the bones of bears from a number of Irish localities now 

 commenced — e.g. by R. Ball, 1 ' A. Carte, 5 and H. Denny. 11 Some of the bones 

 found were even attributed to the polar bear. 



Miiller 7 (1872), in a beautifully illustrated work on certain bears' skulls from 

 Russia, doubted the possibility of distinguishing between the different species of 

 fossil bears even by their teeth. 



In 1807 appeared the first of a series of important communications from Busk 

 dealing with the fossil bears. In this paper, of which, unfortunately, only an 

 abstract was published,* he mentioned that the teeth on which reliance was to be 

 placed in distinguishing the different species of fossil bears were pm. 4, pm. 4, 

 m. 2, in. 3. He expressed the opinion that U. priscus was identical with U. ferox. 

 In 1873 appeared his very important paper <J on the animal remains found in the 

 Brixham cave, in which he fully discussed the mutual relationship of the various 

 species of fossil bears. He established the fact that U. priscus, Cuv., was identical 

 with U. fossilis, Goldf., and U. ferox, the modern grizzly, and considered that all 

 the Irish specimens were referable to the latter species. He thought that U. ferox 

 (priscus) was commoner even in England than U. speld&us. He discussed the 

 differences by which, according to Owen, the teeth of U. spdseus, U. arctos, and 

 / . ferox could be distinguished, but thought that these differences were not all 

 constant and considered that it would be impossible to distinguish between the 



1 ' Untersuch. Schiideln des gemeinen Landbareii,' etc., St. Petersburg. 



2 ' Abhandl. k. bay. Akad. Wisseuseh.,' vi, I Abth., 1851, p. 193. 



3 ' Cat. Caruiv. Pachyderm, and Edentate Mainni. in Brit. Mas.,' p. 217. 

 * 'Proa R. Irish Acad.,' iv, 1849, p. 146. 



■ ' Journ. R. Dublin Soc.,' ii, 1860, p. 344; and ' Journ. R. Geol. Soc. Dublin,' x, 1864, p. 114. 



« ' Proc. Yorks. Geol. and Polyt. Soc.,' iv, 1864, p. 347. 



7 ' Di-ei in der Provinz Preussen ausgegrabeiie Biirenschiidel.' 



8 'Q. J. Geol. Soc.,' xxiii, 1867, p. 342; and ' Phil. Mag.,' xxxiv, 1867, p. 399. 

 » • Phil. Trans.,' clxiii, [,. 532. 



