349 
lengthened and sagittiform ; as also in the great difference in 
the length of the sagittal crest. In its size, the flattened 
form of the forehead, and the shape of the orbital expanse, 
there is a close resemblance to the skull of the Grisly Bear 
(Ursus ferox) of the Rocky Mountains, of which it may 
possibly have been the progenitor. It differs, however, in 
having only one permanent premolar on each side of the 
upper jaw, while ferox has two, which are also permanent — 
as I find from a noble adult skull of this species lately added 
to the Leeds Museum, which still retains its premolars. 
The smaller specimen I believe to be the Fen Bear (Ursus 
Arctos), though from its less protuberant forehead it 
resembles the Ursus Priscus. Hitherto I believe the priscus 
has only been found in caves, with spelams, and, therefore, 
as a cave-hunting species, unlikely to be found submerged 
beneath a bog. The same objection, however, would apply to 
Arctos, which at the present day is found exclusively in 
forests in the north of Europe, and yet this species has been 
exhumed from a bog in Cambridgeshire, as well as from 
similar situations in Ireland. 
The occurrence, however, of an individual or two in 
lacustrine formations, ought not to invalidate their identity, 
as an occasional straggler, — in the pursuit of the Magaceros, 
with which it was contemporary, — might either have become 
mired, or perished by the horns of that noble animal when 
at bay in a morass, in which situations the remains of this 
gigantic ruminant are almost invariably found. I am aware 
that some Palaeontologists will object to my diagnosis of 
species, and consider the convex forehead as a character not 
constant to depend upon, but with due respect to such opinion, 
I may remark that if it is not constant, the absence of 
convexity is the exception to the rule in those species where 
it occurs. I have four skulls of the Polar Bear, of different 
ages, but not one exhibits a departure from the flat, low fore- 
