SOWEBBY — BEAES OF EASTEEN ASIA 
229 
Yesterday, in company with Dr. C. Hart Merriam and Mr. James W. Gidley, 
I compared your skull of Manchurian “ Melanarctos” (U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 199683) 
with skulls and teeth of cave bears from the Pyrenees, with the Kamchatkan 
Ursus piscator and the largest grizzlies and brown bears of western North Amer- 
ica. We found it impossible to separate these animals by cranial and dental char- 
acters into subgeneric groups. Such differences as occur, for instance those 
distinguishing the extinct Pyrenean bears from living Alaskan species, and 
those distinguishing your animal from either of these two or from Ursus piscator, 
are no greater than the differences present among various forms now occurring 
in North America. In other words the characters are merely specific. In its 
past and present distribution this group of bears resembles some of the lago- 
morphs and rodents. The genus Ochotona ranged west to England in the Pleisto- 
cene; it is now confined to Asia and western North America. A Pleistocene 
Microtus of the “ Stenocranius” group has been found in southern England. The 
group now ranges from the Altai Mountains to Alaska. Probably there are sev- 
eral other instances of the same kind. 
My specimen, referred to by Mr. Miller, is a fine sample of its kind. 
It was shot by myself in the forest to the north of I-mien-p’o, in Kirin 
Province, and was sent to the Smithsonian Institution. It and Heude’s 
two specimens of cavifrons and melanarctos are the only ones of these 
particular species known to exist in any recognized museum, and are 
therefore of great importance. 
On the question of whether or not this genus is distinct from Ursus 
there seems to me to be little doubt; though it is not quite clear, owing 
to lack of material for examination, exactly which species belong to 
which genus. 
Pocock has separated the grizzly bears from Ursus on the strength 
of the fact that the skin between the toes extends much further towards 
the tips in the former than in the latter. He used the name Danis 
Gray (1825), which, as already pointed out, is preoccupied (Fabricius, 
1808). Thus Brookes’ catalogue name Spelceus (1828), based on 
Spelceus antiquorum (= spelceus), as the next oldest is the correct one 
for this group of bears. If, however, as Mr. Miller has pointed out 
in litteris, it should be found that the living ^cave’ bears can be 
separated from their extinct ancestors, then Heude’s name Melanarctos 
would be the correct one for the recent group. There seems no 
way but to accept Brookes’ name, in spite of its appearing in a sale 
catalogue of his collection. 
JOUBNAL OF MAMMALOGY, VOL. I, NO. 5 
