Bears appear to be of Old World origin. Fossils tell of their existence in Asia eons ago. The first bear emigrants perhaps landed in Alaska more than a million years ago. They may have come over on one of the land bridges which have at times connected Asia and America.

“In the Old World, bears were first distinguishable in the Upper Miocene, and may there be traced back to forms which were unmistakably derivatives of the early dogs,” says Mr. William B. Scott in “A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.”

It is interesting that bears, dogs, and seals descended from a common ancestor. Seals have been called “sea bears.” The bear lives for a long period each year without either food or drink. During this period he lies dormant. The seal has the habit of doing without food and drink and also sleep for weeks while leading an active life. The bear and the dog are alike in many ways. Both accept domestication readily and both become loyal and intimate associates of man. Many of their ways in play are alike, and each has the habit of sometimes becoming restless in his home locality and traveling afar for adventure.

In North America bears have branched out into numerous species, and here they have attained their greatest development. South America has, perhaps, only one small species, and Africa only one. Europe and Asia combined are accredited with having eight species.

The grizzly is distributed over the western half of North America, from northern Alaska far down into Mexico. His home is more generally in the mountains. He is also found in the barren lands of Canada, in the Bad Lands of the Upper Missouri, and in the western margin of the Great Plains. On a number of the wilderness islands of the Alaskan and Northwest Coast, where he is of unusually large size, he forms a numerous population.

The similarity of the mental processes and the customs of the various species of Alaskan bears has been remarked upon by many people. Mr. Charles Sheldon, the hunter-scientist, says:—

“Nothing is more striking than the general similarity in nature, actions, appearance, and habits of both the brown bears of the humid coast region of Alaska and the grizzlies of the dry interior. The several species of both the coast and inland bears differ more or less widely in size, anatomy, color, and claws, but no one can observe them in their natural habitats without realizing that all have descended from a common ancestor.”

The little that I have seen of the polar bear suggests to me that he may be related to the grizzly. It is interesting that the coats of the polar bear are uniformly white, while those of the grizzly are of assorted colors.

The grizzly is scattered over a vast and varied range, feeds on a variety of food, and is divided into numerous species and subspecies, but he ever runs true to character, everywhere is one hundred per cent grizzly. The chief points of dissimilarity in the different species are the shape of the skull and the character of the teeth. Rarely is there any difference apparent in the living animals; the classification is determined chiefly from the teeth and the formation of the skull.

Color is no clue to the species. Color may vary as much in one species, or even in one litter of cubs, as in different species widely separated as to locality. Assemble a number of grizzlies representing each of the many species and subspecies, and there will be a bewildering array of fur coats, perhaps no two alike. However, as I have said, the grizzly’s characteristics are ever the same, no matter what the color of his coat or where he lives. Wherever you see a grizzly,—on the glaciers of Alaska, on the desert sands of Mexico, or fishing in the Columbia,—he seems as much the same old acquaintance as the bluebird who comes each spring.

The color of the species runs through many shades of brown: among them are cream, tan, mouse-color, cinnamon, and golden yellow. Black or almost white may be the fur of the grizzly, but shades of gray and brown predominate. Infrequently a grizzly is seen with a coat of more than one color. This variety of color causes confusion concerning species, but within the bounds of the United States, outside of Alaska, there are virtually only two kinds of bear, the black and the grizzly, though these are divided by naturalists into many species and subspecies according to the arrangement and forms of their teeth and the bones of the head. Cinnamon and brown are common colors of both grizzlies and black bears.

The fur of the grizzly, like any fur, is composed of a fine, thick fleece lining and long, coarse hairs which project from it. The under fur may be of any color, but the hairs that project through this are, I believe, invariably dark with a silver tip. Commonly the fur is long and shaggy on the grizzly’s flanks and shoulders.

The grizzly is from six to seven feet long and in contour is pointed in front, and heavy, though well-rounded, behind. His shoulders are high. The body of the grizzly is longer, straighter along the back line, and less humped on the haunches than the black bear’s. The grizzly’s head is narrower, the jaws and nose longer and less blunt, than the black’s.

The grizzly always appears larger than he really is. The average weight is between three hundred and fifty and six hundred pounds; males weigh a fourth more than females. Few grizzlies weigh more than seven hundred pounds, though exceptional specimens are known to have weighed more than one thousand. Adams gave the weight of “Samson,” a California grizzly, as fifteen hundred pounds, and a few Alaskan grizzlies, judging by their skins, may have weighed more than “Samson.” It may be that years ago, when not so closely hunted, the grizzly lived longer and grew to a larger size than he attains to-day.

The grizzly looks capable and substantial. His massive proportions suggest strength rather than bulk. With back broad and well-rounded, and feet pulled well together beneath him, he may at first appearance seem top-heavy. But this impression is forgotten the instant his movements display his ease of adjustment and nicety of balance. Without effort he raises himself on hind legs to his full height gracefully and stands with the repose of a statue.

Many of his movements appear awkward and clumsy. He is loose-jointed and sometimes is rather lumbering; he often shuffles as though wearing a large, loose wooden shoe on each foot. Commonly he travels along with a gait neither walk nor trot. Yet the bear is exceedingly speedy and few horses can overtake him. His endurance is astounding.

He has extraordinary strength. I have known him to drag the carcass of a cow or a steer of twice his own weight. In several instances this was dragged up the mountain-side over fallen logs, yet it was apparently moved without extraordinary effort.

The grizzly is exceptionally expert and agile with his paws. With either fore paw he can strike like a sledge-hammer or lift a heavy weight. He boxes or strikes with lightning-like rapidity. Most grizzlies are right-handed; that is, the right fore paw is most used. If a small object is to be touched or moved, he will daintily use but one claw. The black bear would use the entire paw.

The fore-foot prints made by the grizzly are much shorter than the tracks made by his hind feet. His hind foot leaves a track similar to the bare-footed track of a man, while the track of the fore foot has the appearance of the grizzly’s having walked upon the front of his foot,—the ball and toes,—with the heel upraised. The fore claws are from two to five inches long, the hind claws much shorter.

The fore ankles of the grizzly are smaller than the black bear’s, the hind feet relatively larger; the claws are much longer and less curved. The grizzly’s claws do not curve as sharply downward as a black’s, but the claw-points extend well beyond the ends of the toes. The black’s curved claws are much used in climbing; the grizzly’s claws are used mostly for digging.

The largest grizzly-track that I have measured was slightly more than thirteen inches long, and seven and one half inches wide at the widest point. These measurements did not include the claw-marks. In places where this bear had slipped on snowy or muddy ground the track with claw-marks was of most formidable appearance. Many of the big Alaskan grizzlies have large feet, sometimes making a track eighteen inches in length. However, in the Rocky Mountains I have seen a large track that had been made by a comparatively small bear. More than once I have seen bears weighing less than four hundred pounds whose feet were larger than those of other bears who weighed upwards of six hundred pounds. A large grizzly bear track does not necessarily indicate that it is the track of a large bear.

There is marked difference in the ordinary ways of the black and the grizzly. The grizzly is energetic, thorough, works hard, and takes life rather seriously; while the black bear is lazy, careless, does no more work each day than is necessary, and is more playful. The grizzly’s hibernating-den is usually a substantial, complete affair, while that of the black bear is more or less of a makeshift. The black bear likes to play with other bears, while the grizzly enjoys playing alone. The black climbs a tree easily and often sleeps in a tree-top; the grizzly bear rarely climbs after he passes cubhood.

Most of the time the grizzly is silent. When he does say anything it is in a queer, but expressive, language. He utters a choppy champ of a cough; he says “Woof,” “Woof,” with various accents; he growls eloquently; he grunts and he sniffs. The youngsters say something like “Eu-wow-wow,” and when forlorn give an appealing cry I cannot translate into words.

Little is known concerning the mating-habits of wild grizzly bears. The majority of authorities maintain that mating takes place in June and July, while a few believe that it occurs late in the autumn. The few times that I have seen males and females together were in late June and July.

Although known to the white race only a little more than a century, the grizzly has been a part of the life and legends of the Indians for countless generations. Often feared, frequently admired, his brain and brawn are featured again and again; he is always the acknowledged chief and master of the wilderness.

Many are the names that he carries: grizzly bear, silver-tip, white bear, bald-face, cinnamon bear, roach-back, range bear, and others.

The first printed mention of the grizzly that I know of is one by Edward Umfreville, who, in writing concerning Hudson’s Bay in 1790, mentions the “Grizzle Bear.” In 1795 Sir Alexander MacKenzie writes of the “Grisly Bear.” But the grizzly was given a definite place in history when Lewis and Clark mentioned him in their Journal, in April, 1805, as the “white bear.” Much that they wrote was made public, and the bear’s career started, by Governor DeWitt Clinton in an address before the Literary and Philosophical Society of New York, May 4, 1814.

As is shown by Guthrie’s Geography, George Ord, the naturalist, described and first classified the grizzly as Ursus horribilis, in 1815. This was from information which Brackenridge had gathered, chiefly from the Journal of Lewis and Clark, and was based on the "white bear" of the type locality of the Missouri River a little above the mouth of Poplar River, northeastern Montana.

Dr. C. Hart Merriam is the supreme authority concerning bears. Following I give his classification of the grizzly and big brown bears, together with quotations from his introduction to “North American Fauna, No. 41” (1918):—

“REVIEW OF THE GRIZZLY AND BIG BROWN BEARS OF NORTH AMERICA (Genus Ursus) “WITH DESCRIPTION OF A NEW GENUS VETULARCTOS

“When Audubon and Bachman published their great work on the Mammals of North America (1846-1854), and in fact up to the year 1857, it was commonly believed by naturalists as well as by hunters and the public generally that there was only a single species of grizzly bear—the one described by Lewis and Clark in 1804-5, and named Ursus horribilis by Ord in 1815. Baird, in 1857, described another species, from Coppermines, New Mexico, which he named Ursus horriÆus.

“Nearly forty years later, in my ‘Preliminary Synopsis of the American Bears,’ eight grizzlies and big brown bears were recognized, of which five were described as new. It was not then suspected that the number remaining to be discovered was anything like so great as has since proved to be the case. The steady influx of specimens resulting from the labors of the Biological Survey, supplemented by the personal efforts of a number of hunter-naturalists, brought to light many surprises, most of which have been published; and beginning in the spring of 1910, a fund placed at my disposal made it possible to offer hunters and trappers sufficient inducement to tempt them to exert themselves in securing needed specimens. As a result, the national collection of bears has steadily grown until, in number of species represented, in completeness of series, and in number of type specimens, it now far excels all other collections in the world together.

“Nevertheless there are many gaps in the series. Knowledge of the big bears is by no means complete and many years must pass before the last word on the subject will be written. Many bears now roaming the wilds will have to be killed and their skulls and skins sent to museums before their characters and variations will be fully understood and before it will be possible to construct accurate maps of their ranges. Persons having the means and ambition to hunt big game may be assured that bears are still common in many parts of British Columbia, Yukon Territory, and Alaska, and that much additional material is absolutely required to settle questions still in doubt....

“Some writers have advanced the view that the various species of bears freely interbreed. Let those so minded ask themselves the question, If promiscuous interbreeding were to take place, what would become of the species? From the nature of the case, the stability of species depends on the rarity of crossings with other species, for if interbreeding were to take place frequently the species so interbreeding would of course cease to exist, having merged into a common hybrid. Hybrids now and then occur, particularly in zoÖlogical gardens, but among wild animals in their native haunts they are exceedingly rare.

“The number of species here given will appear to many as preposterous. To all such I extend a cordial invitation to visit the National Museum and see for themselves what the bear skulls show. Recognition of species is a matter of interpretation. If the material is adequate there can be little room for difference of opinion; if inadequate, many important points must remain in doubt. It is not the business of the naturalist either to create or to suppress species, but to endeavor to ascertain how many Nature has established, and having discovered this, to point out their characters and learn as much as possible about them.

“One of the unlooked-for results of the critical study of the American bears is the discovery that the big bears, like mice and other small mammals, split up into a large number of forms whose ranges in some cases overlap so that three or more species may be found in the same region.

“Another surprising result is the discovery that Admiralty Island in Southwestern Alaska appears to be inhabited by no less than five distinct species, each of which is obviously related to and representative of an adjacent mainland species....

“SEXUAL DIFFERENCES

“In most species of bears the males are much larger than the females. In some the disparity in size is very remarkable, as in middendorffi of Kodiak Island and magister of southern California. In a few cases the difference is slight, as in kidderi of Alaska Peninsula.

“AGE DIFFERENCES

“Bear skulls undergo a series of changes from early life to old age, and in most species do not attain their mature form until seven or more years of age. In species having the frontal shield highly elevated, as in middendorffi, kluane, stikeenensis, and mirabilis, the frontals reach their maximum of arching or bulging in early adult life (about the sixth year), after which they gradually become flatter....

“CLASSIFICATION OF GRIZZLY AND BIG BROWN BEARS

“The differences formerly supposed to exist between the grizzlies and the big brown bears appear, in the light of the material now available, to distinguish certain groups of species from certain other groups, rather than the grizzlies collectively from the big brown bears collectively. In other words, the differences between the grizzlies on the one hand and the big brown bears on the other are neither so great nor so constant as at one time believed. And there are species which in the present state of knowledge cannot be positively referred to either group. In fact, it seems at least possible that certain species which appear to belong with the grizzlies are closely related to certain other species which clearly belong with the big brown bears. The typical brown bears differ from the typical grizzlies in peculiarities of color, claws, skull, and teeth. The color of the former is more uniform, with less of the surface grizzling due to admixture of pale-tipped hairs; the claws are shorter, more curved, darker, and scurfy instead of smooth; the skull is more massive; the fourth lower premolar is conical, lacking the sulcate heel of the true grizzlies. But these are average differences, not one of which holds true throughout the group. Most of the specimens in museums consist of skulls only, unaccompanied by skins or claws, leaving a doubt as to the external characters; and in old bears the important fourth lower premolar is likely to be so worn that its original form cannot be made out. And, worst of all, some of the grizzlies lack the distinctive type of premolar, leaving only the skull as a guide to their affinities. The present classification, therefore, must be regarded as tentative and subject to revision....“The present paper is merely a review of the existing state of knowledge of the grizzlies and big brown bears of America and does not include either the polar or the black bears. It is not intended as a monographic revision, but aims to supply a list of the species, together with descriptions and comparisons of adult skulls, chiefly males. Little is said of external characters, for the reason that little is known, only a few skins with claws being available for study.”

“LIST OF SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES OF GRIZZLY AND BIG BROWN BEARS, WITH TYPE LOCALITIES.[1]

(Classification provisional.)

FOOTNOTES: