The anti-specific-blazoning-of-the-bear point of view is two fold. 1) Because heraldic beasts are drawn stylistically rather than realistically a bear is a bear is a bear is a bear and 2) the same coat of arms with a black bear (species as opposed to color) would not have been seen traditionally as a different coat of arms. That being the case, there is no need to identify the species of bear in the blazon.

Your blazon specifies "Ursus Americanus horribilus" citing Wiki as the source.  This didn’t sound quite right, so I looked it up in the Random House "American College Dictionary."

This dictionary defines "brown bear" as "1. a variety of the common black bear, Ursus americanus, having a brownish coat.  2. a variety of the black bear of Europe and America, Ursos Arctos, inhabiting northern regions."

and "Grizzly bear" as "a large ferocious bear, Ursus horribilis, of western North America, varying from greyish to brownish."

The grizzly is also, by state law, the brown-colored bear on the California state flag, even though it’s been extinct for a century or thereabouts. (Note however that the state law depicts and prescribes one specific representation of the bear, with no allowance for artistic license; the state’s apparent need for precise uniformity in its official insignia being essentially at odds with the customs of personal/familial heraldry, which allows for and encourages artistic license.)

And the only surviving bears in the state are "black bears"—which the Random House dictionary identifies as "a species of American bear, Eurarctos americanus, with a pale face and dense black fur"—but which I’ve been told by various rangers in state & national parks/forests, vary in color from bear to bear, or in some cases season to season depending on who you listen to.  In any case, your artwork doesn’t suggest that you want a pale-faced bear, whatever color the rest of him might be.

The mess above suggests to me that (1) Wiki isn’t the most reliable source; and (2) while quoting the [hopefully correct] Latin species name may give you some degree of precision re: body shape, it won’t tie down the color in any useful way. And (3) the relatively minor physical differences [other than color] from one species of bear to another are likely insufficient to be heraldically distinct, which I think someone else has already mentioned.  (You can or course draw them, or so instruct your artist, in your favorite way, but that’s just artistic license which is heraldically interchangeable—look in almost any heraldic text at the variety of artistic impressions of e.g. a lion rampant.)

I would just suggest "brown bear" without the Latin, since the most (I would say only) significant heraldic issue is the color of the bear.  I wouldn’t just say "bear" (or "a bear proper") because the color really is important to your design.  In heraldry, if not zoologically, a brown bear is not the same as a black bear even if, in nature or at the zoo, they may belong to the same species or even be the same critter at different seasons.

I realize that others might (likely do) view it differently, trusting to the artist to "default" to some shade of brown; but since the natural color of bears, even within the same species, can vary, I would opt for specifying the color.

Anyway, that’s how I see it, FWIW.

I think that the Latin name is correct.

The genus is Ursus - to which most bears belong

The species is arctos - which are brown bears

the subspecies is horribilis - which we commonly call the Grizzly bear, obviously a subspecies of brown bear)

I suppose that "a brown bear, proper" or "a grizzly bear, proper" would both work fine.

Kenneth Mansfield;96909 wrote:

The anti-specific-blazoning-of-the-bear point of view is two fold. 1) Because heraldic beasts are drawn stylistically rather than realistically a bear is a bear is a bear is a bear and 2) the same coat of arms with a black bear (species as opposed to color) would not have been seen traditionally as a different coat of arms. That being the case, there is no need to identify the species of bear in the blazon.

Exactly.  A generic artist may well want to know exactly what species the bear is supposed to be so that he can depict it as naturalistically as possible.  A heraldic artist normally needs only to know that it’s a bear, what posture it should be in, and what tincture.

It is the same with other animals of the normal heraldic menagerie.  A lion is depicted as a heraldic lion whether the designer’s intention is that it represent Panthera leo persicus (Asian lion), P. leo krugeri (Transvaal lion), or one of the other nine recognized subspecies of Panthera leo.

To answer Mike McC’s Wikipedia-based discussion of species and subspecies, I’d recommend instead www.bearsoftheworld.net.

For the record, my blazon reads:

Arms: Argent an American Brown Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) passant reguardant proper, on a chief engrailed Azure seven novae Argent.

Crest: On a wreath of the liveries, a Dara Celtic Knot argent between two branches of Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) proper.

Motto: “In vis gnaritas libertas”

(my emphasis)

As to the accuracy of Wikis, that is a whole different can of worms, and a very good reason to check the sources cited on the Wiki.

I would also suggest that a general dictionary is not the best nor necessarily the most accurate source for biological data, including correct species identifications.

The citation of so many different interpretations of the names "brown bear", "black bear" and "grizzly bear" just within the confines of this thread serve to justify my position of specifying the exact beast that I want depicted as a charge on my shield.

Quoting from two paragraphs on page 3 of the Heraldic Primer on this site:

“…any animal the armiger wishes may be used. As heraldry has spread around the world, it has become customary to use distinctive local fauna to distinguish the arms of people and institutions. The only limiting factor is the need for the animal to be easily identifiable. Some distinctly unique American animals that can be used in ones armorial…”

“The choices for charges are virtually limitless… as long as the charges have meaning to the armiger.”

(emphasis again mine)

It is important to me that the charge on my shield be depicted as an American brown bear, Ursus arctos horribilis, also known as a grizzly or silvertip bear. I have found nothing in any reference I have so far been able to locate that suggests that the specification is "wrong", "bad heraldry" or anything of the sort. To the contrary, the quotes cited above from this very organization support it as correct and acceptable.

I am really not interested in a protracted debate on this subject. I posted here looking for input, suggestions and comments on my design, and have received them. For that, I am appreciative to all who have contributed.

I have written to my Clan Chief, asking for his permission to register and assume these arms as blazoned above.

I have also checked the United States Heraldic Register and found several other similarly specific blazons, so I am confident that the specification will not be an impediment to registration.

I will shift into lurking mode now and set my sights on learning more about this fascinating field.

David,

I will not continue with any debate on why you should not specify the species of bear on your shield, but I do need to point out a comment that you have made which seems a bit unfair for you to make. You say you "have found nothing in any reference…that suggests that the specification is ‘wrong’, ‘bad heraldry’ or anything of the sort." I suspect that is true and that you are unlikely to find such a reference. But that is simply because I doubt that any serious writer on the subject would have thought it necessary to spell it out. In the context of heraldry, as I said before, a bear is a bear is a bear is a bear.

You have quoted back to us our own heraldic primer, but you have missed the spirit of the text, at least in my opinion. I will add my own emphasis this time:

"As heraldry has spread around the world, it has become customary to use distinctive local fauna to distinguish the arms of people and institutions. The only limiting factor is the need for the animal to be easily identifiable. Some distinctly unique American animals that can be used in ones armorial are included in figure 11."

Drawn stylistically is a grizzly that distinguishable? Is a grizzly distinctly unique from other bears? Looking back over hundreds of years of heraldry and in that context, I answer the question in the negative. Others may not. I think the point of local fauna and distinction really applies to adding new creatures to the lexicon like the springbok in Mike Oettle’s crest, not noting differences between species of bears.

I’ll let it rest at that. One other note, though….

David_T;96926 wrote:

I have written to my Clan Chief, asking for his permission to register and assume these arms as blazoned above.

If your clan chief accepts that you are armigerous based on the fact that as an American you have rightfully assumed arms, he may give his permission for you to wear a feather in your bonnet to denote that you are an armigerous member of his clan. Your clan chief, however, has no authority to grant permission for you to bear arms or to approve or disapprove of the arms themselves.

Kenneth Mansfield;96935 wrote:

"The only limiting factor is the need for the animal to be easily identifiable. Some distinctly unique American animals that can be used in ones armorial are included in figure 11."

I don’t see anything with your emphasis versus mine that makes a difference in specifying the charge as I have. Strange how two people can read the identical text and reach totally different conclusions.

Quote:

Drawn stylistically is a grizzly that distinguishable? Is a grizzly distinctly unique from other bears? Looking back over hundreds of years of heraldry and in that context, I answer the question in the negative. Others may not.

Again, the grizzly is distinct to me as an armiger. According to how I read the Primer text (and several others), that should be the determining factor in how it is depicted heraldicly on my arms and not the other way around. Io put it another way, I want a grizzly bear as the charge - not a classically heraldicly stylized generic bear. To me, those are indeed two different animals altogether.

Quote:

If your clan chief accepts that you are armigerous based on the fact that as an American you have rightfully assumed arms, he may give his permission for you to wear a feather in your bonnet to denote that you are an armigerous member of his clan. Your clan chief, however, has no authority to grant permission for you to bear arms or to approve or disapprove of the arms themselves.

Sometimes authority is given freely, even when it is not legally required. I have written to my Chief as a matter of respect, partly because of the fact that my arms contain elements of the ancestral MacTavish arms, and subsequently his own. I will abide by his decision whether I am actually required to do so by any applicable law or regulation. For some of us, the clan still holds real meaning beyond the force of law.

With regard to the "feather issue", as my arms are not Scottish arms, I have no intention of attempting to follow that Scottish tradition (nor do I intend to petition the Lyon Court for a grant of Scottish arms). When kilted, especially at clan functions or as a clan representative, I will continue to proudly wear the retainer’s badge of my Chief’s arms. The sole exception would be in the highly unlikely event that I was directed to do so by my Chief.

Interesting discussion.  I do apologize for mis-remembering "americanus" rather than "arctos."

But looking at the emblazonment (which I really do like), I didn’t perceive it as a grizzly bear - to me, it was just a nicely-drawn heraldic brown bear, with the key point being "brown" i.e. the color, not the species. In an art form that can render an animal in any color (how many red, blue or green lions exist in real life?) the color is IMO the most distinctive aspect of any heraldic beast, be it a bear or a butterfly.

I don’t personally have a problem with specifying the species of bear or butterfly, but if a particular species is specified I would expect that whatever makes that species visibly different would be emphasized.  (My pet peeve is stags trippant that look more like a timid Bambi than the rutting Monarch of the Glen—but heraldically a stag is a stag is a stag, whether I blazon it as a red deer or a Rocky Mountain Elk.  I can request it be drawn one way, but the other is just as heraldically correct, even if I don’t much like it.)

If anything, in this case my first visual impression was of the bears in the arms of the current Pope—nice-looking bears (depending on the artist) but not grizzles.  I would have expected a grizzly bear to look particularly "horribilis" and have the distinctive hump at the shoulders, as on the California flag—or perhaps even a bit exaggerated to avoid looking like a non-grizzly.  (While the Bear Flag has the hump, the official artwork is IMO deficient in the ferocity department—it’s a not-terribly-horribilus grizzly on Prozac )  And there are likely others who wouldn’t perceive any difference between a teddy bear and a grizzly—the eye of the beholder

But that’s all just me.  Your arms, as you have drawn them, are IMO very nice.  So long as your blazon clearly expresses the brown color and the passant regardant posture or attitude, so that an artist can recreate an acceptable image from the written blazon, it is adequate even if it includes additional specifics that, while symbolically important to you, are unlikely to affect the artwork.  There is some loss of simple eloquence but that’s a personal trade-off.

Anyway, glad you’re with us, even if some of your views may be contrary to some of ours—if we all agreed on everything every time [never happens!], we wouldn’t all need to be here.

Michael. thank you for your comments. The shield pictured is a working conceptual drawing—not an emblazonment at all. But the fact tht you clearly pointed out the the bear is a generic heraldic bear and not a grizzly as specified in the blazon rather makes my point.

If one wants a specific species of bear to be rendered every time, then one should blazon as specifically as possible.

On the other hand, the best heraldry (IMO) is the simplest which can easily be identified at a distance (and specific species of bear are often difficult to identify when tiny).

Just offering this as constructively as I may from my unique perspective (I certainly don’t speak for the majority, lol).

Being a Heraldic Artist I thought I would offer my $.02

As stated by both Kenneth and Joseph a bear is a bear.  If I was working on your commission I am only looking at the tincture, attitude of the body,  the position of the head, and if there is one visible, the type or position of tail if other than normal.  I will then draw the bear in that attitude/head position in my artistic style.

You are welcome to blazon whatever you would like for your arms.  But you should have the expectation that if you have your arms emblazoned by a Heraldic Artist, he/she will draw you a bear.  If you say draw me a Grizzly, you will most likely get the same bear looking a little meaner.

Not all distillers make single malt whisky, nor do all lawyers handle corporate mergers.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Michael McCartney’s mention of the hump on the grizzly made me think of my emblazonment of the arms of Ronald Reagan:

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/President/reagan.png

Reagan’s arms are blazoned "Or a bear rampant Sable…" and in Adolf Karlovský‘s original emblazonment, the bear looks like he walked right off the arms of a Swiss or German town.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/uploads/President/Ronald_W_Reagan.jpg

Both are heraldic bears—mine may be somewhat more grizzly-ish, because I was aware that Reagan’s bear is intended to allude to the state flag, but it wouldn’t remotely pass zoological muster.  Both representations are faithful to the blazon but show the flexibility available to the artist.

Does this advance or further confuse the issue?

David_T;96954 wrote:

Not all distillers make single malt whisky, nor do all lawyers handle corporate mergers.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I understand the point you are trying to make.  I am simply stating you need to understand the point of others as well and to set a correct expectation for yourself and for any artist you work with.  If you wish your bear to look like a very specific bear…might I suggest when the time comes that you provide detailed pictures to the artist of what you would like your bear to look like.  This way you will obtain your bear.

Personally I feel this will take some of the excitment from having different artist emblazon your arms.  Part of the true joy of heraldry is the different interpretations artists make of the blazon.  Not only style differences of the artist, but in what the artist envisions when he reads your blazon.  I would hate for you to miss that experience by creating a blazon that is being too restrictive.

I would never consider to tell you what you should do, but I encourage you to listen or at least seriously consider the suggestions that have been provided.  From my own work and creation of my arms here years ago, suggestions such as the ones in this thread have proven to be a great benefit.

Terry;96956 wrote:

If you wish your bear to look like a very specific bear…might I suggest when the time comes that you provide detailed pictures to the artist of what you would like your bear to look like.

I’m on it. Thanks.