their stomachs stones of an ash colour, of divers figures and magnitudes; yet not bred there, as the common people and seamen fancy, but swallowed by the bird; as though by this mark also nature would manifest that these fowl are of the ostrich kind, in that they swallow any hard things, though they do not digest them." It appears from Adam Olearius ('Die Gottorfische Kunst Kammer,' 1666), that there was a head to be seen in the Gottorf Museum; but the figure (tab. xiii. f. 5) is very like that of Clusius. It is mentioned as the head of the Walch-Vogel, and Clusius is referred to. In the plate the head is shaded, and has a more finished appearance; the rest of the bird is in outline.

"

Grew (Museum Regalis Societatis; or a Catalogue and Description of the Natural and Artificial Rarities belonging to the Royal Society,' London, folio, 1681), at p. 68, thus describes the bird which is the subject of our inquiry :—“The leg of a Dodo, called Cygnus cucullatus by Nierembergius; by Clusius, Gallus gallinaceus peregrinus; by Bontius called Dronte, who saith that by some it is called (in Dutch) Dod-aers, largely described in Mr. Willughby's 'Ornithol.' out of Clusius and others. He is more especially distinguished from other birds by the membranous hood on his head, the greatness and strength of his bill, the littleness of his wings, his bunchy tail, and the shortness of his legs. Abating his head and legs, he seems to be much like an ostrich, to which also he comes near as to the bigness of his body. He breeds in Mauris's Island. The leg here preserved is covered with a reddish-yellow scale; not much above four inches long, yet above five inches in thickness, or round about the joints, wherein, though it be inferior to that of an Ostrich or Cassowary, yet, joined with its shortness, may render it of almost equal strength.' At p. 73 there is the following notice :-"The head of the Man of War, called also Albitrosse; supposed by some to be the head of a Dodo, but it seems doubtful. That there is a bird called the Man of War is commonly known to our seamen; and several of them who have seen the head here preserved do affirm it to be the head of that bird, which they describe to be a very great one, the wings whereof are eight feet over. And Ligon ('Hist. of Barbad.' p. 61), speaking of him, saith, that he will commonly fly out to sea to see what ships are coming to land, and so return. Whereas the Dodo is hardly a volatile bird, having little or no wings, except such as those of the Cassowary and the Ostrich. Besides, although the upper beak of this bill doth much resemble that of the Dodo, yet the nether is of a quite different shape; so that this either is not the head of a Dodo, or else we have nowhere a true figure of it." Grew then gives a very lengthened description of the skull which is figured by him (tab. 6), and intituled "Head of the Albitros," as it doubtless was. The leg above mentioned is that now preserved in the British Museum, where it was deposited with the other specimens described by Grew, when the Royal Society gave their rarities' to that national establishment. Grew was a well-qualified observer, and much of this description implies observation and comparison; indeed, though he does not refer to it, there is no reason for supposing that Grew was not familiar with Tradescant's specimen.

Charleton also (Onomasticon,' 1688) speaks of the Dodo Lusitanorum, Cygnus cucullatus, Willughby and Ray, and asserts that the Museum of the Royal Society of London contained a leg of the Dodo. This was evidently the leg above alluded to.

We now proceed to trace the specimen which was in the Museum Tradescantianum. There were, it seems, three Tradescants-grandfather, father, and son. [TRADESCANT, in LIT. AND BIOG. DIV.] The two former are said to have been gardeners to Queen Elizabeth, and the latter to Charles I. There are two portraits to the Museum,' one of 'Joannes Tradescantus pater' and the other of 'Joannes Tradescantus filius,' by Hollar. These two appear to have been the collectors for John Tradescant, the son, writes in his address "to the ingenious reader" that he "was resolved to take a catalogue of those varieties and curiosities which my father had scedulously collected, and my selfe with continued diligence have augmented, and hitherto preserved together." This John Tradescant, the son, must have been the Tradescant with whom Elias Ashmole boarded for a summer when Ashmole agreed to purchase the collection, which was said to have been conveyed to Ashmole by deed of gift from Tradescant and his wife. Tradescant died soon after, and Ashmole in 1662 filed a bill in Chancery for a delivery of the curiosities. The cause is stated to have come to a hearing in 1664; and in 1674 Mrs. Tradescant delivered up the collection pursuant to a decree in Chancery, and afterwards (April, 1678, some say) was found drowned in her own pond. Ashmole added to the collection, and presented it to the University of Oxford, where it became the foundation of the Ashmolean Museum. That the entire ‘Dodar' went to Oxford with the rest of Tradescant's curiosities there can be no doubt. Hyde ('Religionis Veterum Persarum, &c., Historia,' 1700) makes particular mention of it as existing in the Museum at Oxford. There, according to Mr. Duncan, it was destroyed in 1755 by order of the visitors, and he thus gives the evidence of its destruction :

In the 'Ashmolean Catalogue, made by Ed. Llhwyd, Musæi Procustos, 1684 (Plott being the keeper), the entry of the bird is "No. 29. Gallus gallinaceus peregrinus Clusii," &c. In a Catalogue made subsequently to 1755, it is stated that "The numbers from

NAT. HIST. DIY, VOL. II.

5 to 46 being decayed, were ordered to be removed at a meeting of the majority of the visitors, Jan. 8, 1755." Among these of course was included the Dodo, its number being 29. This is further shown by a new Catalogue, completed in 1756, in which the order of the visitors is recorded as follows: "Illa quibus nullus in margine assignatur numerus a Musao subducta sunt cimelia, annuentibus Vice-Cancellario aliisque Curatoribus ad ea lustranda convocatis, die Januarii 8vo., A.D. 1755." The Dodo is one of those which are here without the number. (Duncan, 'On the Dodo;' 'Zool. Journ.,' vol. iii. p. 559.)

Upon this solemn sentence, which left to the Museum nothing but a foot and a head, Sir C. Lyell makes the following observation: "Some have complained that inscriptions on tomb-stones convey no general information, except that individuals were born and died, accidents which must happen alike to all men. But the death of a species is so remarkable an event in natural history that it deserves commemoration; and it is with no small interest that we learn from the archives of the University of Oxford, the exact day and year, when the remains of the last specimen of the Dodo, which had been permitted to rot in the Ashmolean Museum, were cast away" and the author concludes by giving the fatal record at length with becoming gravity. The head and foot which now constitute the greatest treasure of the Museum at Oxford were preserved by the curator, who seems to have had a larger amount of natural history knowledge than the majority of visitors.

We now come to the celebrated painting in the British Museum, a copy of which, by the kind assistance of the officers of the zoological department, who have given us every assistance in prosecuting this inquiry, and who had it taken down for the purpose, we present to our readers.

It has been stated that the painting came into the possession of Sir Hans Sloane, president of the Royal Society, and that it was bought at his sale by Edwards, who, after publishing a plate from it in his 'Gleanings,' presented it to the Royal Society, whence it passed, as well as the foot, into the British Museum. But Dr. Gray informs us that the foot only came with the museum of the Royal Society described by Grew; and that the picture was an especial gift from Edwards. Edwards's copy seems to have been made in 1760, and he himself says, "The original picture was drawn in Holland from the living bird brought from St. Maurice's Island in the East Indies in the early times of the discovery of the Indies by the way of the Cape of Good Hope. It was the property of the late Sir Hans Sloane to the time of his death; and afterwards becoming my property I deposited it in the British Museum as a great curiosity. The above history of the picture I had from Sir Hans Sloane and the late Dr. Mortimer, secretary to the Royal Society."

M. Morel, Ecrivain Principal des Hôpitaux au Port-Louis de l'Isle de France, writes as follows in his paper Sur les Oiseaux Monstrueux nommés Dronte, Dodo, Cygne Capuchonné, Solitaire, et Oiseau de Nazare, et sur la petite Isle de Sable à 50 lieues environ de Madagascar :' "These birds, so well described in the second volume of the History of Birds,' by M. le Comte de Buffon, and of which M. de Borame has also spoken in his Dictionary of Natural History,' under the names of Dronte, Dodo, Hooded Swan (Cygne Capuchonné), Solitary or Wild Turkey (Dinde Sauvage) of Madagascar, have never been seen in the Isles of France, Bourbon, Rodriguez, or even the Seychelles lately discovered, during more than 60 years since when these places have been inhabited and visited by French colonists. The oldest inhabitants assure every one that these monstrous birds have been always unknown to them." After some remarks that the Portuguese and Dutch who first overran these islands may have seen some very large birds, such as Emeus or Cassowaries, &c., and described them each after his own manner of observing, M. Morel thus proceeds :-" However this may be, it is certain that for nearly an age (depuis près un siècle) no one has here seen an animal of this species. But it is very probable that before the islands were inhabited, people might have been able to find some species of very large birds, heavy and incapable of flight, and that the first mariners who sojourned there soon destroyed them from the facility with which they were caught. This was what made the Dutch sailors call the bird 'Oiseau de Dégoût' (Walck-Voegel), because they were surfeited with the flesh of it. But among all the species of birds which are found on this isle of sand, and on all the other islets and rocks which are in the neighbourhood of the Isle of France, modern navigators have never found anything approaching to the birds above named, and which may be referred to the number of species which may have existed, but which have been destroyed by the too great facility with which they are taken, and which are no longer found excepting upon islands or coasts entirely uninhabited. At Madagascar, where there are many species of birds unknown in these islands, none have been met with resembling the description above alluded to." (Observations sur la Physique, pour l'An 1778,' tom. xii. p. 154. Notes.)

Mr. Duncan thus concludes his paper above alluded to:-" Having applied, through the medium of a friend, to C. Telfair, Esq., of Port Louis, in the Mauritius, a naturalist of great research, for any infor mation he could furnish or procure relating to the former existence

2 B

call the Dodo by this name, and what the size of a halfpenny roll was in 1651 are difficulties.

There is a tract in the Ashmolean Museum of which there are two editions, the first without a date, the second printed in London 1665. It is a catalogue of rarities to be seen at the musique house at the west end of Paules,' by R. H. alias Forges, Gentleman. Here at p. 11 we find "A Dodo's Leg; it is a bird that cannot fly." This is probably the specimen that passed into the possession of the Royal Society, and was described by Grew.

The last of Mr. Strickland's additions is a manuscript, entitled 'A coppey of Mr. Benj. Harry's Journall when he was chief mate of the Shippe Berkley Castle, Captn. Wm. Talbot then Commander on a voyage to the Coste and Bay, 1679, which voyage they wintered at the Maurisshes.' He speaks of the "Dodos, whose flesh is very hard."

This seems to be the last notice of the Dodo. "That the destruction of the Dodos," says Mr. Strickland, "was completed by 1693 may be inferred from the narrative of Leguat, who in that year remained several months in Mauritius, and enumerates its animal productions at some length, but makes no mention whatever of Dodos."

M. de Blainville says that at a public dinner at the Mauritius in 1816 several persons were present from 70 to 90 years old, who had no knowledge of such a bird from recollection or tradition. Mr. J. V. Thompson also, who resided for some years in Mauritius and Madagascar previous to 1816, states that no more traces of the existence of the Dodo could then be found than of the truth of the tale of Paul and Virginia, although a very general idea prevailed as to the reality of both.

Since the publication of the Penny Cyclopædia' the pictorial evidence of the existence and characters of this bird has also increased. In the royal collection of the Hague is a painting by Roland Savery, which is regarded as one of that master's chef d'oeuvres. It represents Orpheus charming the animal creation with his music, and among innumerable birds and beasts the clumsy Dodo is represented as spell-bound by the lyric bard. This bird was discovered in this picture by Professor Owen in 1838.

"Whilst at the Hague," writes the professor to Mr. Broderip, "in the summer of 1838, I was much struck with the minuteness and accuracy with which the exotic species of animals had been painted by Savery and Breughel in such subjects as Paradise, Orpheus charming the Beasts, &c., in which scope was allowed for grouping together a great variety of animals. Understanding that the celebrated menagerie of Prince Maurice had afforded the living models to these artists, I sat down one day before Savery's Orpheus and the Beasts, to make a list of the species which the picture sufficiently evinced that the artist had had the opportunity to study alive. Judge of my surprise and pleasure in detecting in a dark corner of the picture (which is badly hung between two windows) the Dodo, beautifully finished, showing for example, though but three inches long, the auricular circle of feathers, the scutation of the tarsi, and the loose structure of the caudal plumes. In the number and proportions of the toes, and in general form, it accords with Edwards's oil painting in the British Museum; and I conclude that the miniature must have been copied from the study of a living bird, which it is most probable formed part of the Mauritian menagerie.

"The bird is standing in profile, with a lizard at its feet. Not any of the Dutch naturalists to whom I applied for information respecting the picture, the artist, and his subjects, seemed to be aware of the existence of this evidence of the Dodo in the Hague collection.

"I think I told you that my friend Professor Eschricht of Copenhagen had written to inform me that the skull of a Dodo had been lately discovered in the museum at Copenhagen: it had before formed part of the museum of the Duke of Gottorp."

In 1845 Mr. Strickland was examining Roland Savery's paintings at Berlin. "Among them," he says, "I found one which represents numerous animals in Paradise, one of which is a Dodo of about the same size and in nearly the same attitude as the one last mentioned. This picture was painted in 1626. Another picture of the Dodo, also by Roland Savery, date 1628, exists in the imperial collection of the Bellvedere at Vienna. The attitude is very different from that in the other pictures, giving the impression that Savery must have studied this bird from living specimens, and probably the one exhibited in London sat to Savery for his portraits.'

The only existing recent remains attributed to the Dodo are-a leg in the British Museum, and a head (a cast of which is in Brit. Mus.), and a leg in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, the relics of Tradescant's bird, and the head referred to by Professor Owen. Whether the leg formerly in the museum of Pauw be that at present in the British Museum may be perhaps doubtful, though we think with Dr. Gray that they are probably identical; but that the specimen in the British Museum did not belong to Tradescant's specimen is clear, for it existed in the collection belonging to the Royal Society when Tradescant's 'Dodar' was complete. In the 'Annales des Sciences' (tom. xxi. p. 103, Sept. 1830) will be found an account of an assemblage of fossil bones, then recently discovered under a bed of lava in the Isle of France (Mauritius), and sent to the Paris Museum. They almost all belonged to a large living species of land-tortoise, called Testudo

Indica, but amongst them were the head, sternum, and humerus of the Dodo. "M. Cuvier,” adds Sir Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology,' "showed me these valuable remains at Paris, and assured me that they left no doubt in his mind that the huge bird was one of the gallinaceous tribe."

Head of Dodo (from cast of Oxford specimen).

Foot of Dodo (specimen in the British Museum). "Let us now endeavour," says Mr. Strickland, "to combine into one view the results of the historical, pictorial, and anatomical data which we possess respecting the Dodo.

"We must figure it to ourselves as a massive clumsy bird, ungraceful in its form, and with a slow waddling motion. We cannot form a better idea of it than by imagining a young duck or gosling enlarged to the dimensions of a swan. It affords one of those cases, of which we have many examples in zoology, where a species, or a part of the organs in a species, remains permanently undeveloped or in an infantine state. Such a condition has reference to peculiarities in the mode of life of the animal, which render certain organs unnecessary; and they therefore are retained through life in an imperfect state, instead of attaining that fully-developed condition which marks the mature age of the generality of animals. The Greenland Whale, for instance, may be called a permanent suckling; having no occasion for teeth the teeth never penetrate the gums, though in youth they are distinctly traceable in the dental groove of the jaws. The Proteus again is a permanent tadpole, destined to inhabit the waters which fill subterranean caverns; the gills which in other batrachian reptiles are cast off as the animal approaches maturity are here retained through life, while the eyes are mere subcutaneous specks, incapable of contributing to the sense of vision. And, lastly (not to multiply examples), the Dodo is (or rather was) a permanent nestling, clothed with down instead of feathers, and with the wings and tail so short and feeble as to be utterly unsubservient to flight. It may appear at first sight difficult to account for the presence of organs which are practically useless. Why, it may be asked, does the whale possess the germs of teeth which are never used for mastication? Why has the proteus eyes, when he is especially created to dwell in darkness? and why was the dodo endowed with wings at all, when those wings were useless for locomotion? This question is too wide and too deep to plunge into at present. I will merely observe that these apparently anomalous facts are really the indications of laws which the Creator has been pleased to follow in the construction of organised beings. They are inscriptions in an unknown hieroglyphic, which we are quite sure mean something, but of which we have scarcely begun to master the alphabet. There appear however reasonable grounds for believing that the Creator has assigned to each class of animals a definite type, or structure, from which he has never departed, even in the most exceptional or eccentric modifications of form. Thus if we suppose, for instance, that the abstract idea of a mammal implied the presence of wings, we may then comprehend why in the whale, the proteus, and the dodo, these organs are merely suppressed, and not wholly annihilated. And let us beware of attributing anything like imperfection to these anomalous organisms, however deficient they may be in those complicated structures which we so much admire in other creatures. Each animal and plant has received its peculiar organisation for the purpose, not of exciting the admiration of other beings, but of sustaining its own existence. Its perfection therefore consists, not in the number or complication of its organs, but in the adaptation of its whole structure to the external circumstances in which it is destined to live, and in this point of view we shall find that every department of the organic creation is equally perfect; the humblest animalcule, or the simplest Conferva, being as completely organised with reference to its appropriate habitat and its destined functions

as man himself, who claims to be lord of all. Such a view of the creation is surely more philosophical than the crude and profane idea entertained by Buffon and his disciples, one of whom calls the dodo 'un oiseau bizarre, dont toutes les parties portaient le caractère d'une conception manquée.' He fancies that this imperfection was the result of the youthful impatience of the newly-formed volcanic islands which gave birth to the dodo, and implies that a steady old continent would have produced a much better article."

We now pass to the consideration of the place this apparently anomalous bird ought to occupy in the systems of classification of zoologists.

Piso, in his edition of Bontius, places the Dodo immediately before the Cassowary; and here we may observe that the figure of Bontius does not appear to be identical with the picture which now hangs in the British Museum. Though there is a general. resemblance there are particular differences which go far to show, at all events, that the figure of Bontius and that in the picture are different portraits. Willughby's eighth chapter treats of 'The greatest land-birds, of a peculiar kind by themselves, which by reason of the bulk of their bodies and the smallness of their wings cannot fly, but only walk.' The Ostrich occupies the first section of this chapter, and the Dodo the fourth and last, being immediately preceded by the Cassowary or Emeu. Ray's sectionAves rostris rectioribus minusque hamatis maximæ, singulares et sui generis, ob corporum molem et alarum brevitatem volandi impotes' contains the same birds as Willughby's eighth chapter, namely, the Ostrich, the American Ostrich, the Emeu, Eme, or Cassowary, and lastly the Dodo.

Moehring, and after him Brisson, gives the bird under the name of Raphus a position next to the Ostriches also.

Buffon places it independently.

Linnæus, in his last edition of the 'Systema Nature' (the 12th, 1766), places the bird at the head of his Gallina, the order immediately succeeding the Gralla, under the name of Didus ineptus, and immediately before the genus Pavo (Peacocks). The genus Struthio is the last of his Gralla, and Rhea (American Ostrich) the last species of Struthio, so that Didus ineptus stands between Struthio Rhea, Linn., and Pavo cristatus (the Peacock). In a former edition Linnæus had noticed the bird under the name Struthio cucullatus.

Latham in his synopsis (1782) followed Linnæus, but gave three species namely, the Hooded Dodo, the Solitary Dodo, and the

Nazarene Dodo.

Gmelin, in his edition of the 'Systema Natura' (1789), makes Psophia (Trumpeter) the last genus of the Linnæan Gralla, and Otis (Bustard) the first genus of the Linnæan Gallina, under which lastmentioned order he arranges the genus Didus, placing it between the genera Struthio and Pavo, which are both included by Gmelin in the order Gallina. He also gives three species-1st, Didus ineptus, which he describes as "black, clouded with white, with tetradactyle feet." The following are his synonyms:-Didus, Syst. Nat.' xii. 1, p. 267, n. 1; Struthio cucullatus, 'Syst. Nat.' x. p. 155; Raphus, Briss. 'Av.' 5, p. 14, n. 1; Cygnus cucullatus, Nieremb. Nat.' 231; Gallus gallinaceus peregrinus, Clus. Exot.' 99, t. 10; Olear. 'Mus.' 23, t. 13, f. 5; Dronte, Bont. Jav.' 70; Buff. 'Hist. Nat. des Ois.' i. p. 480; Dod-aersen, or Valgh-Vogel, Herbert, it. p. 382, t. 383; Dodo, Raj. 'Av.' p. 37, n. 8; Will. Orn.' p. 153, t. 27; Edw. 'Glean.' t. 294; Hooded Dodo, Lath. 'Syn.' iii. 1, p. 1, t. 70. 2nd, Didus solitarius, Solitaire, Buff. Hist. Nat. des Ois.' i. p. 485; Leguat, it. i. p. 98; Solitary Dodo, Lath. 'Syn.' iii. 1, p. 3, n. 2. This species is described by Gmelin as "varied with gray and brown, with tetradactyle feet." 3rd, Didus Nazarenus, Oiseau de Nazareth, et Oiseau de Nausée, Buff. Hist. Nat. des Ois.' i. p. 485; Cauche, Madag.' p. 130; Nazarene Dodo, Lath. ‘Syn.' iii. 1, p. 4, n. 3. Gmelin describes this species as "black, with tetradactyle feet."

Blumenbach followed Linnæus; and Duméril and Vieillot followed Latham.

Temminck instituted in his 'Analyse du Système Général d'Ornithologie' the order Inertes for the Dodo and the Apteryx; two birds, as Mr. Yarrell in his paper on the Apteryx (Trans. Zool. Soc.' vol. i. p. 71) observes, differing decidedly from each other in their beaks; but in reference to their imperfect wings, as also in the nature of their external covering, having obvious relation to the species included in his order Cursores. "But," adds Mr. Yarrell, "the situation chosen for this order Inertes, at the extreme end of his systematic arrangement, leads me to infer that M. Temminck considered as imaginary the subjects for which it was formed."

Illiger, in his 'Prodromus' (1811), instituted the order Inepti for the reception of the Dodo alone, Apteryx not being then known, and he placed it immediately preceding his Cursores, containing the Struthious Birds.

Cuvier, in the first edition of his 'Règne Animal,' at the end of his notice on his family Brevipennes (Les Autruches, Struthio, Linn.), has the following note appended to his description of the last species, Rhea :--"I cannot place in this table species but badly known, or, more, so little authentic as those which compose the genus Didus. The first, or the Dronte (Didus ineptus), is only known from a description given by the first Dutch navigators, and preserved by Clusius, Exot. p. 99, and by an oil-painting of the same epoch copied by Edwards, pl. 294; for the description of Herbert is puerile, and all

the others are copied from Clusius and Edwards. It would seem that the species has entirely disappeared, and we now possess no more of it at the present day than a foot preserved in the British Museum (Shaw, Nat. Miscell. pl. 143), and a head in bad condition in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. The bill does not seem to be without some relation to that of the Auks (Pingouins), and the foot would bear considerable resemblance to that of the Penguins (Manchots) if it were palmated. The second species, or the Solitaire (Didus solitarius), rests only on the testimony of Leguat, Voy.' i. p. 98, a man who has disfigured the best known animals, such as the Hippopotamus and Lamantin. Finally, the third species, or L'Oiseau de Nazare (Didus Nazarenus), is only known through François Cauche, who regards it as the same as the Dronte, and yet only gives it three toes, while all other authors give four to the Dronte. No one has been able to see any of these birds since these voyagers." Cuvier's opinions subsequently underwent considerable modification. When he was in this country he had an opportunity of seeing the head preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, and the foot in the British Museum, and he doubted the identity of this species with that of which the painting is preserved in the national collection. Lyell mentions these doubts, and we must here recall to the reader the geologist's statement above alluded to, that Cuvier showed him the valuable remains in Paris, and that he assured him that they left no doubt on his mind that the huge bird was one of the Gallinaceous tribe. ('Sur quelques Ossemens,' &c., Ann. des Sci.' tome xxi. p. 103, Sept. 1830.)

Shaw, as appears indeed from Cuvier's note, made mention of the Dodo in his Naturalist's Miscellany' (plates 142 and 143), giving a figure of the head preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, and in his 'Zoological Lectures.'

Mr. Vigors in his paper On the Natural Affinities that connect the Orders and Families of Birds' (Linn. Trans.' vol. xiv.) thus writes on the subject of the Dodo:-"The bird in question, from every account which we have of its economy, and from the appearance of its head and foot, is decidedly gallinaceous; and, from the insufficiency of its wings for the purposes of flight, it may with equal certainty be pronounced to be of the Struthious structure, and referable to the present family. But the foot has a strong hind toe, and, with the exception of its being more robust, in which character it still adheres to the Struthionidæ, it corresponds exactly with the foot of the Linnæan genus Crax, that commences the succeeding family."

M. Lesson, in his 'Manual' (1828), after giving a description of the Dodo (genus Dronte, Didus, Linn., Raphus, Moehring, Brisson), says that the genus includes but one species which may be considered as at all authenticated, and which exists no longer; this is the Dronte, Didus ineptus, described by Clusius, ex. p. 99, figured by Edwards, pl. 294. "They possess," he adds, "a foot and head of it at London, figured in Shaw's 'Miscell.' pl. 143 and 166." Then comes the following statement:-"M. Temminck has adopted, after Shaw, the genus Apteryx, which he thus describes." M. Lesson, after giving the description and noticing the only known species, Apteryx Australis, proceeds to make the following queries: "May not the Dronte be the Cassowary of the East Indies, to which has been added the bill of an Albatross? It is said that it was once very common in the Isles of France and of Bourbon, and that the former received the name of the Isle of Cerne from these birds. May not the Apteryx of M. Temminck be founded on the fragments of the Dronte preserved in the Museum of London?" To make the confusion complete, M. Lesson places immediately before the genus Dronte the Emou Kivikivi, Dromiceius Nova Zelandia, Less., which is no other than the Apteryx Australis of Shaw, and which has been so well described and figured by Mr. Yarrell in the first volume of the 'Transactions of the Zoological Society of London.'

M. de Blainville, in a memoir on the 'Didus ineptus,' read before the Academy of Sciences, on the 30th of August, 1830, and published in the 'Nouvelles Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle' (tome iv. p. 1, 4to., Paris, 1835), enters at large into the history of the bird. After giving the different points on which the claim of the Dodo to be considered a gallinaceous bird rests, and the reasons for and against it, he thus proceeds :-" Among the orders of birds which include the largest species, there only remain the birds of prey with which the Dodo can be compared; and it seems to us that it is to them that the bird bears the greatest resemblance." In proof of this it is necessary to attend to the following observations:

1. The eyes are situated in the same part of the bill as in Cathartes. 2. The nostrils are oval, situated very forward, and without a superior scale, as in those birds.

3. The form of the skull, its great width in the interorbitary space, and its flatness at the sinciput, are also nearly the same as in those vultures.

4. Even the colour of the bill, and the two caruncular folds of the origin of the curved part, are nearly the same as in those birds. 5. The species of hood which the skin forms at the root of the bill, and which have earned for the Dodo the name of Cygnus cucullatus, has a very similar disposition in Cathartes.

6. The almost entire nudity of the neck, as well as its greenish colour seen through the few downy feathers which cover it, are also characteristic of the vulture.

7. The form, the number, and the disposition of the toes, as well as the force and curvature of the claws, indicate a bird of that family at least as much as a Gallinaceous Bird.

8. The scaly system of the tarsi and of the toes more resembles also what is found in Cathartes than what is observed in the Gallinaceous Birds.

9. The kind of Jabot at the root of the neck, and even the muscular stomach, are found in one order as well as in the other. 10. Lastly, M. de Blainville notices the absence of the spur (l'ergot), which he remarks is nearly characteristic of the Gallinaceous Birds.

M. de Blainville, after expressing a hope that both the Aye-Aye (Cheiromys, which has not been seen a second time since the days of Sonnerat) and the Dodo may be yet recovered in the interior of Madagascar, thus concludes his memoir :

"1. There exist in the English collections traces of at least three individuals of a large species of walking bird (oiseau marcheur), to which has been given the name of Dodo, Dronte, Didus ineptus.

"2. These traces exist in Europe since the epoch when the Dutch began to take part in the discovery of the passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, that is to say, about 1594.

"3. The name of Dodo is employed for the first time by Herbert, that of Dronte by Piso, but without its being possible to arrive at the origin and etymology of these denominations.

4. The country of this bird is the Isle of France; there being nothing to prove positively that it has been found either at Bourbon or at Fernandez, as has been thought, owing to the confusion, no doubt, between the Dodo and Solitaire of Leguat.

"5. The Dronte should be approximated to or even placed in the order of Rapacious Birds, near the vultures, rather than in that of the Gallinaceous Birds; and, for stronger reasons, rather than among the Grallatores (Echassiers), or near the Penguins (Manchots).

"6. It is by no means certain that this bird has disappeared from the number of living animals. If this is possible in the case of the Isle of France, it is not probable in the case of Madagascar, the productions of which are so little known, and which belongs, up to a certain point, to the same archipelago.

"There remains another question to discuss, namely, whether the incrusted bones which have been lately sent to M. Cuvier from the Isle of France really belonged to the Dodo, as M. Cuvier was led to believe. It is a question which would be most easily solved by the immediate comparison of these bones with the pieces preserved in England. If this was so, which the difference of height in the tarsal bone does not permit us to believe, it would be at the same time proved that the Dodo existed also at Rodriguez, for these bones have been found in this isle in a cave (grotte), as M. Quoy, who saw them on his passage to the Isle of France, has assured me; and not at the Isle of France under beds of lava, as M. Cuvier has stated from erroneous information in his note read lately to the academy. Then there would be nearly a certainty that the Dodo was a Gallinaceous Bird; but in making the observation that these bones come from the Isle of Fernandez, and that the description of the Solitaire of Leguat accords sufficiently well with a bird of this order, or at least with a GallinoGralle, it might be that the bones actually in the hands of M. Cuvier were no other than those of the Solitary Bird properly so called, and not those of the true Dronte."

The memoir is illustrated with four plates. The first is a coloured copy of the head of the Dodo from the Museum portrait, of the size of the original. In the painting, the author observes, the head is at least a foot long from the occiput to the extremity of the bill; but the head at Oxford is only eight inches and a half, or about twothirds. The bill, he adds, makes out nearly three-fourths of the whole length. The second plate gives a profile of the Oxford head from a sketch taken from the original, and a view of the same seen from above, and skulls of the Urubu and Vultur Papa. The third plate gives two views of the foot preserved in the British Museum, and the remains of the foot at Oxford; a foot of the Heath-Cock (Coq de Bruyère), a foot of a Penguin, and a foot of Vultur Papa. The fourth plate gives a profile of the cast of the head at Oxford, and a view of the same seen from below.

In the British Museum (1837), in cases 65-68 (Room xiii.), are the Ostrich; Bustards "which in many respects are allied to the Gallinaceous Birds;" the foot and cast of the head of the Dodo above alluded to; the Courser and Pratincole; and at page 99 of the 'Synopsis ' (1832) we have the following observations :-"Over the door adjoining the twelfth room is an original painting of the Dodo, presented to the Museum by George Edwards, Esq., the celebrated ornithological artist, and copied in his works, plate No. 294, who says it was 'drawn in Holland from a living bird brought from St. Maurice's Island in the East Indies.' The only remains of this bird at present known are a foot (case 65) in this collection (presented by the Royal Society), and a head and foot said to have belonged to a specimen which was formerly in Tradescant's Museum, but is now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. The cast of the head above mentioned (in the same case) was presented by P. Duncan, Esq. The bird in the shortness of the wings resembles the ostrich, but its foot in general rather resembles that of the common fowl, and the beak from the position of its nostrils is most nearly allied to the vultures; so

that its true place in the series of birds, if indeed such a bird ever really existed, is not as yet satisfactorily determined.”

Mr. Swainson ('Natural History and Classification of Birds,' 1836), speaking of the birds of prey, says (p. 285):-" The third and last type of this family appears to us to be the Secretary Vulture of Africa, forming the genus Gypogeranus. At least we cannot assign it to any other known division of the Raptores without separating it much more widely from its congeners than our present state of knowledge will sanction. It has been thought indeed that this remarkable bird represented one of the primary divisions of the whole order, in which case it would stand between the owls and the Dodo; but its similarity to the vultures and the falcons in our opinion is too great to favour this supposition; while, on the other hand, it will subsequently appear that the circle of the Falconida is sufficiently. complete to show that it does not enter into that family." After some other observations Mr. Swainson concludes his remarks on the Secretary thus :-" It must be remembered also that the very same objections occur against placing this bird (the Secretary) between the Strigidæ (Owls) and the Didida (Dodos) as those we have intimated against considering it as the grallatorial type of the Vulturidæ.” That a bird or birds called by the name of Dodo and the other appellations which we need not here repeat once existed, we think the evidence above given sufficiently proves. We have indeed heard doubts expressed whether the Museum portrait was taken "from a living bird," and have also heard it suggested that the picture may represent a specimen made up of the body of an ostrich to which the bill and legs of other birds have been attached; and here it is that the destruction of Tradescant's specimen becomes a source of the greatest regret. Whatever was the condition of that specimen, as long as the skin was preserved there existed the means of ascertaining whether it was real or a made-up monster; and when the vicechancellor and the other curators, in making their lustration, gave the fatal nod of approbation they destroyed that evidence. With regard to the picture, we have endeavoured to place it before the reader as well as our limited means will permit, in order that he may have an opportunity of judging from the internal evidence as to the probability of the portrait being taken from a living bird, and with this view we have given the accessories as they appear in the painting as well as the principal figure.

Dr. J. E. Gray, among others, still inclines, we believe, to the opinion that the bird represented was made up by joining the head of a bird of prey approaching the Vultures, if not belonging to that family, to the legs of a Gallinaceous Bird; and his opinion, from his attainments and experience, is worthy of all respect. His reasons for considering the Dodo as belonging to the Raptores chiefly rest on the following facts, premising, as he does, that it is to be borne in mind that in the Raptorial Birds the form of the bill is their chief ordinal character, which is not the case with the Grallatores or the Natatores, where the form of the feet and legs are the chief character of the order :

"1. The base of the bill is enveloped in a cere, as may be seen in the cast, where the folds of the cere are distinctly exhibited, especially over the back of the nostrils. The cere is only found in the Raptorial Birds.

"2. The nostrils are placed exactly in front of the cere, as they are in the other Raptores; they are oval, and nearly erect, as they are in the True Vultures, and in that genus alone; and not longitudinal as they are in the Cathartes, all the Gallinaceous Birds, Grallatores, and Natatores; and they are naked, and covered with an arched scale, as is the case in all the Gallinacea.

"3. In Edwards's picture the bill is represented as much hooked (like the Raptores) at the tip; a character which unfortunately cannot be verified on the Oxford head, as that specimen is destitute of the horny sheath of the bill, and only shows the form of the bony core.

"With regard to the size of the bill, it is to be observed that this part varies greatly in the different species of Vultures; indeed so much so, that there is no reason to believe that the bird of the Oxford head was much larger than some of the known Vultures.

"With regard to the foot," adds Dr. Gray, "it has all the characters of that of the Gallinaceous Birds, and differs from all the Vultures in the shortness of the middle toe, the form of the scales on the leg, and the bluntness of the claws."

But if we grant Dr. Gray's position, see what we have to deal with. We have then two species, which are either extinct or have escaped the researches of all zoologists, to account for one, a bird of prey, to judge from its bill, larger than the condor; the other a Gallinaceous Bird, whose pillar-like legs must have supported an enormous body. As to the stories of the disgusting quality of the flesh of the bird found and eaten by the Dutch, that will weigh but little in the scale when we take the expression to be, what it really was, indicative of a comparative preference for the turtle-doves there found after feeding on Dodoз usque et nauseam.' "Always partridges" has become almost proverbial, and we find from Lawson how a repetition of the most delicious food palls. "We cooked our supper," says that traveller, "but having neither bread nor salt our fat turkeys began to be loathsome to us; although we were never wanting of a good appetite, yet a continuance of one diet made us weary;" and again: "By the way