Ursus Thibetanus. F. Cuv.

It is with no slight feelings of regret that we find ourselves unable to furnish a complete and satisfactory account of the animal from whom the portrait above given was taken. Very soon after the drawing was completed, and before we had availed ourselves of the opportunity of making the necessary examination, we were unfortunately precluded from so doing by his sudden transfer to another country. His likeness alone, and a faithful and spirited likeness we will venture to pronounce it, remains with us. From this, and from the very imperfect notes which we possess, we have little hesitation in referring it provisionally to the species first[130] established by M. Duvaucel, and since published by M. F. Cuvier in his splendid Histoire Naturelle des Mammifères. The circumstance, however, of our animal, the only individual of his species ever seen in Europe, having been brought from the Island of Sumatra instead of the continent of India, in which alone the Ursus Thibetanus had hitherto been discovered, is so remarkable, that we should have felt bound, had the means still remained open to us, to institute a close and severe comparison between the living specimen and the figure and description furnished by M. Duvaucel and M. Cuvier. As it is, we can only repeat the characters of the Thibet Bear as given by them, and refer to our figure for all the proof which we have it in our power to offer of its identity with the present animal. We trust that M. Temminck, or some other competent naturalist of the country to which the latter has been conveyed, will amply supply a deficiency which certainly would not have existed had we received timely notice of the intended transfer.

M. Duvaucel enumerates three species of bears inhabiting India and the neighbouring islands. The first of these is the Ursus labiatus, which was strangely mistaken on its first arrival in Europe, nearly forty years ago, for a Sloth, and received from the naturalists of that day the name of Bradypus pentadactylus, or ursinus, the Five-fingered, or Ursine, Sloth; an appellation which has been productive of no little confusion in nomenclature, and is still frequently employed in menageries and exhibitions to distinguish the same animal, and sometimes even nearly related species. With the true Sloths it has nothing in common; and the only circumstance[131] which can at all account for the blunder, consists in the accidental deficiency of the incisor teeth in the animal first examined; a deficiency, which, according to the strict principles of the artificial system then adopted, was alone sufficient to convert a Bear into a Sloth. The second is th............