32 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALIA. 



Personally I am in agreement with the majority of zoologists referred to 

 above, in being unable to find valid and constant characters enabling one to 

 distinguish between the skeletal parts of the various bears of the arctos type. 

 Tliis conclusion has been stated by A. E. Brown 1 in the following forcible manner: 

 " A critical survey of the cranial and dental characters shows little that is constant 

 except variation, and absolutely forces the conclusion that there is not one 

 [character] sufficiently stable and uniform to be of specific value. The European 

 bear and grizzly run into one another so regularly that, except in extreme cases, 

 there is no possibility of distinction apart from geographical considerations." 



The differences separating the cave bear from the others are certainly greater 

 than those between the different bears of the arctos type, but, unless perhaps in the 

 case of pin. 4, it is doubtful whether they are sufficiently marked and constant to 

 afford specific distinctions. Certainly all the species of Pleistocene bears are 

 closely allied and tend to run into one another, and it is perhaps not a matter of 

 much practical importance whether they are grouped as one, two, or three species. 

 On the whole it has seemed most satisfactory to recognise the specific distinction 

 of U. spelseus, while grouping all the other Pleistocene bears as U. arctos. 



V. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



1672. J. Paterson Hayn, ' Ephem. Curieux de la Nature,' dec. i, an. hi, obs. 



exxxix, p. 220. 



1673. H. Vollgnad, ibid., an. iv, obs. clxx, p. 226. 



1732. F. E. Briickmann, 'Bresl. Saml.,' p. 628, and ' Epist. Itin.,' p. 32. 



1774. J. F. Esper, ' Ausf iihrliche Nachricht — Zoolithen ' (Bayreuth). 



1784. J. F. Esper, ' Ecrits par la Soc. Nat. de Berlin,' v. 



1 7*.» 1. J. Hunter, " Observations on Fossil Bones presented to the Royal Society," 



' Phil. Trans.,' lxxxiv, p. 407. 

 1794. J. C. Rosenmiiller, ' De Oss. Foss.,' p. 18 (Leipzig). 

 1791. J. C. Rosenmiiller, ' Beitr. Gesch. Foss. Knochen,' p. 44< (Weimar, a German 



reprint of the above). 

 1803. .1. F. Blumenbach, ' Spec. Archneologia? Telluris,' iii, p. 12 (Gottingen). 

 1801. J. C. Rosenmuller, 'Abbild. u. Beschreib. der Foss. Knochen des Hohlen- 



baren ' (Weimar). 

 1806. G. Cuvier, " Sur les ossemens du genre de Tours," ' Annales du Museum,' 



vii, ]». 301. 

 1810. (I. A. Goldfuss, ' Verhandl. k. Leopold-Karol. Acad, der Naturforscher,' x 



(2), p. 200. 

 1822. W. Buckland, "Account of an Assemblage of Fossils — Kirkdale Cave," 



' Phil. Trans.,' cxii, p. 171 . 



1 ' Proc. A.cad. Nat. Sci. Philad.,' 1894, p. Hi). 



