OCR Text |
Show 1897.] BEUE BEAR OF TIBET. 417 that the Black Bear (whether one or more forms are recognized is immaterial) is decidedly different from all the members of the U. arctus group. The feature which strikes m e as the most remarkable in his paper is the recognition of three distinct species of the Brown Bear group as inhabiting Alaska alone-one being from Kadiak Island, the second fromVakutat Bay, and the third from the coast near Sitka. Now when w^e take into consideration the large size of these animals and the circumstance that Carnivora are generally in the habit of wandering over wide tracts of country, it appears to m e impossible to have three distinct species inhabiting such a limited area, although there may be grounds for regarding the island form as separable from those inhabiting the mainland. In the separation of the American Bears, Dr. Merriam relies very largely on differences in the skull and cheek-teeth ; but it appears to m e that too much importance has been attached to such points of difference both by himself and Gray. A remarkable instance of this is afforded by the case of the so-called Myrmarctos eversmannl, to which Gray refers one of the skulls figured by Middendorff as U. arctos, var. heringlana • this skull coming from Kamschatka, where the typical form of that Bear dwells. And to believe that there are two closely allied Bears in Kamschatka seems to me an absolute impossibility. I cannot help agreeing with Dr. Sehiirff that when we find Bear-skulls from the same district showing considerable differences from one another,we must attribute such differences either to individual or sexual variation, or to age1. Similarly, we may find among the Bears of Europe some individuals with long limbs, high foreheads, and elongated muzzles, whereas in others from the same district the limbs are shorter and stouter, the forehead broader and flatter, and the muzzle shorter. And surely such differences cannot be regarded as of specific, or even subspecific, value. On the other hand, when all the Bears of one particular district differ in one or more characters from those inhabiting the neighbouring regions, specific or subspecific differences may fairly be claimed. Admitting, then, that there are certain differences to be found among the members of the U. arctus group inhabiting different areas, the next question is whether these should be regarded as of specific or subspecific value. It may fairly be allowed that the question is not of Aery much importance one way or the other, and also that it is one in wdiich scarcely any two observers are likely to agree. All are, however, I believe in accord as to the close alliance between the Bears of this group. And an important point to my mind-though it is one which others wdll probably deem worthy of little consideration-is that the Pleistocene Brown Bear of Europe, according to Busk, is nearer to the American Grizzly than to the typical existing Brown Bear. If this be true, it points to the 1 In tbe case of the type of Myrmarctos eversmanni the difference is due to immaturity alone. |