part xvi

. p. 2). This foramen also exists in Owls and Parrots, but not in all Pigeons; the _Didunculus_ (Pl. III. fig. 2) shows no trace of it; I have also failed to find it in the skull of a Crown-pigeon (_Goura coronata_). The superoccipital ridge is defined by the subsidence of the surface beneath it being continued directly from the upper, almost flat, smooth surface of the cranium: the middle part of the ridge is more produced than the angles. In the great breadth of the occipital surface compared with its depth, in its flatness from side to side, and its aspect backward and a little upward, _Didus_ most resembles _Dinornis_. The basioccipital curves downward, and unites with the basisphenoid in developing the pair of larger tuberosities (Pl. XI. fig. 1, 5), which terminate about ½ an inch below the occipital condyle. There is nothing of this structure in the Columbine cranium. In one of my Dodo’s skulls there is a pair of small tubercles between the larger basioccipital ones; these are not developed in the other cranium. The basisphenoid is subquadrate, and flattish below, impressed by a shallow median longitudinal channel.

The hypoglossal nerve escapes by two small foramina on each side of the base of the condyle; external to these is the vagal foramen; still more external is the depression (ib. _a_) perforated below by the entocarotid, glossopharyngeal, and sympathetic, above by the tympanic vein. The entocarotid canal opens into the hind part of the sella or pituitary fossa: the vagal canal begins within the skull, above the hypoglossal foramina. The paroccipital carries the posterior surface of the skull downward and outward to a much greater degree than in any Dove, but to a less degree than in _Dinornis_. The Eustachian tubes impress the outer and fore part of the basisphenoid.

The temporal fossæ (Pl. III.), in the present specimens, show the same contraction in proportion to their depth by which the original skull of the Dodo, compared with that of the _Dinornis_, ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.’ (1848, p. 3), differed from the larger extinct wingless bird. In the approximation of the postorbital process to the mastoid, _Didunculus_ shows a closer resemblance to _Didus_ than does _Goura_, in which the temporal fossa, besides being narrow, is shallow. The temporal muscle appears to spread its origin above the fossa upon the sides of the cranium, forward half an inch in advance of the postfrontal process, and backward to the outer angle of the superoccipital ridge.

The parietal region is broad, flat, and short, as in _Dinornis_, not convex as in Doves; it is also impressed at its middle part by a shallow transverse groove, continued outward and forward of less depth and definition, so as to mark off the convex interorbital part of the swollen frontals.

The outer side of the mastoid is convex, smooth, overhanging the tympanic cavity, and sending off a short process, the base of which is defined in one cranium by a transverse ridge in front of the anterior articular cup for the tympanic bone. A similar process is developed in _Didunculus_, not in _Goura_, where it is barely indicated.

The presphenoid is compressed, but thickened and rounded below, where the palatines and pterygoids at their junction with each other abut against it: the pterygoid sends off a short process from the middle of its hinder border; but this is not met by a corresponding “pterygoid process” of the basisphenoid as in _Didunculus_.

The frontals are broad and convex, rising abruptly (as in _Didunculus_) above the coalesced cranial ends of the nasals and premaxillary (Pl. III.); in _Didus_ the breadth greatly exceeds the length of the interorbital frontal convexity, as compared with _Didunculus_, and the convexity reigns in the transverse as well as the antero-posterior direction; in _Didunculus_, however, it is less concave transversely than in _Goura_. In the breadth or thickness of the interorbital septum _Didus_ resembles _Apteryx_ and _Palapteryx_ and shows the same pneumatic cancellous structure. The posterior olfactory chambers are partially divided, as in _Dinornis_, by an upper median septum; each compartment, which is 7 lines across and an inch in length, is perforated posteriorly by an olfactory foramen more than a line in diameter, from which grooved impressions of ramifications of the nerve diverge upon the hind and upper wall of the chamber: external to the olfactory foramen is a longer one for the passage of a vein into the fore and inner part of the orbit.

The cranial ends of the nasals and nasal process of the premaxillary (Pl. XI. fig. 1, 22) are flat, depressed, thin plates; the latter at its junction with the frontal is 6 lines broad, partially divided by a median groove above and a ridge below, and by short linear fissures from the nasals: the forward extension of these bones is feebly indicated by linear grooves terminating at the outer margins of the nasal branch of the premaxillary, about 4 inches from its vertical end. The proportion of the base of the upper mandible attached to the frontal contributed by the nasals is the same as that indicated in the ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.’ _l. c._ The nasal branch of the premaxillary presents a full elliptical transverse section where it quits the maxillary processes, losing both depth and breadth as it recedes to join the nasals; here it retains its breadth, viz. 6 lines, but continues to be thinned off vertically to the plate above named joining the frontal. The under surface of the narrower part of the stem is angular, the upper one being gently convex.

“Where the nasal and maxillary processes diverge, there is a deep groove externally, terminating in a canal directed forwards into the rostral part or body of the premaxillary”[30]. This part is subdecurved, pointed, roughened by irregular vascular perforations and grooves, with a sharp alveolar border, which describes a sigmoid curve lengthwise, and with a deeper concavity of the palatal surface than in _Dinornis_ or _Didunculus_. Moreover the concavity is partially divided lengthwise by a median ridge. The palatal surfaces of the maxillary processes and maxillaries are narrow and very convex transversely, intercepting a long narrow palato-nasal fissure. The outer side of the maxillary process is deep vertically and slightly concave lengthwise—a structure not known in _Didunculus_ or any Dove, and related, like most other deviations from the Columbine cranial characteristics, to the provision of unwonted strength of beak in the Dodo. The maxillary branches of the premaxillary have completely coalesced with the maxillaries, as these have with the palatines; and the halves of the upper mandible here swell out laterally and more so vertically, the maxillaries rising to combine with the outer divisions of the nasals, and sending back a short process from their lower and lateral part to join the malar. The inner surface of the maxillary process (Pl. XI. fig. 1, 22*) is smooth and slightly convex vertically; both upper and lower borders are obtuse and thick.

The palatines arch outward from their posterior attachments, are broad and smooth mesially; the margin here is angular, with a slightly produced obtuse apex, divided by a channel on the under surface of the palatine from the outer convex border; the upper and outer ridge extends forward to the maxillary; the inner one subsides before reaching that bone. “The palatines form the posterior boundaries of the naso-palatine aperture, and approximate each other at both ends, but more closely posteriorly, yet here without meeting; whilst in _Didunculus_ they coalesce before receiving the abutment of the pterygoids.

“The tympanic bone is subquadrate, with the four angles produced, and the upper and hinder are bifurcate, forming the double condyle for the mastoid articulation”[31]. There is a larger pneumatic foramen, communicating with the tympanic cavity, between the articulating cavities for these condyles.

The brain is singularly small in the present species of _Didus_: and if it be viewed as an index of intelligence of the bird, the latter may well be termed _ineptus_. The length of the cranial cavity (Pl. XI. fig. 1, _v_ _c_) is 1 inch 8 lines, its extreme breadth 1 inch 6 lines, its greatest height 1 inch (and this is at the cerebellar fossa). The most remarkable feature in the cranial structure of _Didus_ is the disproportionate size of the brain-case to the important part of the neural axis it contained and protected: some approximation to this condition is made by _Dinornis_[32], the Owls, and a few large Cockatoos, _e. g._ _Microglossum aterrimum_; but it is fully paralleled only by the Elephant among air-breathing vertebrates, as may be seen by comparing the section Pl. XI. fig. 1 with the figures of a similar section quoted below[33].

Not only was the brain of very small proportional size in the present large extinct bird, but the division of the cranial cavity appropriate to the cerebrum proper is less in proportion to that for the cerebellum and optic lobes, at least in vertical and longitudinal diameters, than in any other known bird.

In the Elephant the thickness of the pneumatic diploë between the fore part of the cerebral cavity and that of the outer cranial wall equals the longitudinal diameter of the cavity containing the cerebral hemispheres: in _Didus_ it exceeds that diameter. The thickness of the pneumatic diploë above the cerebral cavity equals the vertical diameter of that cavity in _Didus_: the diploë gradually decreases in thickness as it approaches the foramen magnum. The disposition of the osseous lamellæ forming the cells or cavities of the diploë is very different in the Elephant and Dodo: they extend for the most part vertically between the outer and inner tables of the skull in the proboscidian mammal, leaving long and narrow interspaces; in the heavy ground-bird they form a congeries of small subequal and subspherical air-cells, and this structure obtains in the basal and lateral walls as well as in the superior or “roofing” wall of the cranial cavity. The extent of this cancellous structure at the sides of the cranial cavity may be known by the ratio of the breadth of that cavity to the breadth of the cranium, which is 3 inches and 8 lines at the broadest part of the brain, viz. the prosencephalon. It would seem, at first sight, as if the poorly developed brain of the Dodo had needed, on some account, unusual protection; but the true explanation rests on the size, weight, and power of the bill, and the concomitant necessity for adequate extent of attachment of the facial to the cranial part of the skull, and of the muscles from the trunk destined to sustain and wield the long and heavy-beaked head. The cerebrum of the Dodo does not greatly, and by no means proportionally, exceed the size of that part of the brain in the Crown-pigeons (_Goura_). If the great Ground-dove of the Mauritius gradually gained bulk in the long course of successive generations in that uninhabited thickly-wooded island, and, exempt from the attacks of any enemy, with food enough scattered over the ground, ceased to exert the wings to raise the heavy trunk, then, on Lamarck’s principle, the disused members would atrophy, while the hind limbs, through the increased exercise by habitual motion on land, with increasing weight to support, would hypertrophy.

In the long course of generations subject to this slow rate of change, there would be nothing in the contemporaneous condition of the Mauritian fauna to alarm or in any way to put the Dodo to its wits; being, like other Pigeons, monogamous, the excitement, even, of a seasonal or prenuptial combat, might, as in them, be wanting: we may well suppose the bird to go on feeding and breeding in a lazy, stupid fashion, without call or stimulus to any growth of cerebrum proportionate to the gradually accruing increment of the bulk of the body. Whatever part of the brain was concerned in regulating or controlling muscular actions, might, indeed, be expected to show some concurrent rate of increase with the growing mass of the voluntary contractile fibres; and the size of the cerebellar division (Pl. XI. fig. 1, _n_ _o_) of the cranial cavity accords with the generally accepted physiology of the superincumbent mass of the epencephalon. The lateral depression at the fore and under part of the side of the postcerebral division of the cranial cavity indicates that the optic lobes, like the eyes, remained almost stationary during the progressive acquisition of the bulk that distinguishes the Dodo from the largest existing Doves.

The proportions of _Didus_, _Pezophaps_, _Casuarius_, _Rhea_, _Dromaius_, _Struthio_, _Aptornis_, _Cnemiornis_, _Palapteryx_, _Æpyornis_, _Dinornis_, &c. among terrestrial birds, of _Notornis_ among the lake-haunting Coots, and of _Aptenodytes_ and _Alca impennis_ among seabirds, point to the disuse of wings in flight as the main condition of increase of size in species of birds—the next condition being absence of lethal enemies during the years requisite for such course and rate of growth.

Let foes arise from whom a power of flight is the main condition of escape, and the wingless giants of the feathered class soon succumb. Among the genera above-cited, _Aptornis_, _Cnemiornis_, _Æpyornis_, _Palapteryx_, _Dinornis_, _Didus_, and _Pezophaps_, with the largest of the Auks, have thus passed away, while _Notornis_ and _Apteryx_ are on the verge of extinction through the rapid increase of population in the small island to which they are restricted. In sparsely peopled continents, such as Africa, South America, and Australia, brevipennate giants may still range the deserts, pampas, and unfrequented wilds. The ascertained recent advent of Man in New Zealand, New Britain, Ceram, Banda, Salwattie, Mauritius, Rodriguez, significantly points to the conditions under which have come to pass, in lapse of time, so strange an anomaly as a bird with the specially modified instruments of flight reduced below the power of exerting that mode of locomotion, yet, as a bird, retaining the conditions of the respiratory and tegumentary systems of the volant class, of which it has become a degenerate member. With the cessation of the chief of those conditions, viz. the absence of enemies, such birds necessarily perish.

Refraining, however, from further indulgence in an easy and seductive vein of speculation, I would recall attention to the notable protuberance in the cranial cavity of the Dodo (Pl. XI. fig. 1, _o_) developed towards the upper part of the vertical tentorium, contracting at its lower part into the ridge dividing the prosencephalic from the mesencephalic chamber. In the latter are the orifices for the issue of the trigeminal nerve, the larger and posterior (ib. _tr_) giving passage to the third and second divisions, and answering to the combined foramen ovale and rotundum of mammals, and the smaller and anterior foramen dismissing the first or orbital division of the fifth nerve. At the upper part of the mesencephalic fossa the narrow groove for the lateral venous sinus impresses and defines the back part of the tentorial protuberance, above which it bifurcates, the lower branch bounding or defining the wall of the superior semicircular canal and the upper part of the primitive acoustic capsule. Below this arch is an oblong cerebellar fossa (ib. _n_) which appears to have received veins from the cranial diploë. Beneath this fossa, and just behind the mesencephalic chamber, is the multiperforate internal auditory depression. Next behind this is the outlet for the vagal nerve and entojugular vein. Below this are the small precondyloid foramina. There is a falcial ridge, low and thick, indicating the division of the prosencephalic chamber into lateral compartments for hemispheres; and this ridge shows a narrow groove as for a small longitudinal sinus. A transverse linear groove abruptly defines the fore part of the ridge.

The vertically expanded anterior part of the premaxillary (ib. fig. 1, 22) has a large pneumatic cavity communicating by a reticulate wall with the cells of a cancellous structure, larger than those of the cranial diploë. The maxillary branch of the premaxillary (ib. 22*) consists of a light open-work air-diploë, with a very thin outer case of bone. The short symphysis mandibulæ shows a small cavity, surrounded by more minutely cancellous structure and thicker compact walls, especially at the upper and hinder parts.

Although some characters have been too much insisted on (_e.g._ the “superoccipital foramen”) as exemplifying the affinity of the Dodo, the more essential characters of the skull relate to its true Columbine character, while the deviations from that part of the skeleton of volant Doves are explicable in the adaptive developments needed for the wielding of long, powerful, massive mandibles, serving most probably to enable the bird to subsist on some proportion of animal diet, in addition to such vegetable food as it might gain from the ground. Such indiscriminate feeding doubtless rendered its flesh less palatable than that of the winged Pigeons of the Mauritius to the Dutch navigators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

But the affinities of _Didus_ will be more fully and decisively brought out in the comparison of the, in this respect, more instructive and light-giving parts of the skeleton.

§ 3. _Comparison of the Skeleton._

The dorsal region of the vertebral column shows, in some birds, a confluence of certain vertebræ: I have observed four to be so welded together by both centrums and neural spines in _Phœnicopterus_, viz. the second to the fifth dorsal inclusive, leaving the sixth free, which articulates with the first costigerous sacral vertebra. In _Platalea_ three dorsals coalesce in advance of the antepenultimate free vertebra. In the smaller diurnal birds of prey five dorsal vertebræ are usually confluent, leaving one free vertebra for the lateral movements of the trunk between such dorsal “sacrum” and the pelvic one. In Vultures, Plovers, Bustards, Cranes, _Psophia_, _Cariama_, _Palamedea_, Auks, Penguins, and in all flightless land-birds save the Dodo, no such anchylosis takes place. The _Columbidæ_ are the species in which the dorsal vertebræ, homologous and the same in number with those of _Didus_, undergo the process of confluence into one mass of bone: they are the three which immediately precede the last (moveable) dorsal vertebra; and of these the two anterior develope, in _Goura_ and _Didunculus_, hypapophyses closely corresponding in shape and proportion with those in the Dodo.

The chief difference which _Didus_ offers in the present region of the vertebral column from that of _Columbidæ_ is in the greater number of the vertebræ or segments which are typically completed by bony hæmapophyses articulating with pleurapophyses and directly with their mass of coalesced and expanded hæmal spines constituting the sternum. Of these typical thoracic segments there were five in _Didus_ (Pl. III.); _Didunculus_ (ib.) shows four; _Goura_ three. In both existing genera these segments are succeeded by a single one, anchylosed to the fore part of the sacrum, but with the pleurapophysis long and moveable, with its hæmapophysis terminating in a point before reaching the sternum, and extensively connected with the antecedent hæmapophysis or sternal rib: in both genera two dorsal vertebræ in advance of the typically complete one have moveable pleurapophyses terminating freely in a point, with no hæmapophyses other than the costal processes of the sternum may represent. In _Goura_, which has six pairs of moveable or thoracic ribs, the second pair belong to the first of the three anchylosed dorsal vertebræ: in _Didunculus_, which has seven pairs of thoracic ribs, the second pair belongs to the free dorsal immediately in advance of the anchylosed mass. Supposing _Didus_ to have had one pair of ribs behind, and two pairs in front of those that directly articulate with the sternum, as the vertebra Pl. V. fig. 7 indicates, it would have had eight pairs of thoracic ribs; and I think this excess of one pair beyond the formula in _Didunculus_ to be very probable in the large-bodied, small-winged, extinct Ground-dove.

As far as the series of Dodo’s neck-vertebræ under my observation exhibit such characters, the proportion of those with neural spines, or with hypapophyses, or both, is the same as in the _Columbidæ_. In this family, as in most birds, the greater part of the series want both processes. The cervical parapophyses, descending to form the sides of the carotid canal, do not meet, coalesce, and circumscribe it in any cervical vertebra of _Goura_ or _Didunculus_; and not any of the vertebræ of _Didus_, which I have yet received, shows such circumscription of the hæmal canal. The majority of the cervicals in _Didus_ (those, viz., that lack both neural spines and hypapophyses) are broader and more massive in proportion to their length than in the winged Doves. The third cervical in _Didus_ has both the above processes, as in _Columbidæ_: the characters of the axis vertebra in the same family are closely repeated in that of the Dodo. In the Raptores the axis vertebra is shorter in proportion to its length, and a greater proportion of the cervical vertebræ at both ends of the series have both neural spines and hypapophyses.

The ribs of the Dodo are as broad, in proportion to their length, as in Doves, but are relatively longer in proportion to the dorsal region, encompassing a more capacious thoracic-abdominal cavity. The ribs of the Vulture are more expanded than in _Didus_, especially where they afford the extensive attachment to the epipleurals. But I shall not dwell further on the comparative characters of this part of the skeleton, as more decisive ones of the affinity of _Didus_ are afforded by other parts.

In comparing the sternum of the Dodo with that of Doves of flight, the first well-marked difference is in the adaptive development of the keel in the last (Pl. III. fig. 2, _Didunculus_), and in the provision for the concomitantly broader coracoids, the grooves for which meet and run into each other across the fore part of the bone in existing _Columbidæ_ (Pl. XII. fig. 2, _b_); consequently the inner or upper wall of the confluent grooves forms a median prominence (ib. _e_) at the front margin of the sternum, contrasting with the wide notch at that part of the bone in the Dodo (Pl. IV. fig. 4). The next difference, as compared with _Goura_ and most Pigeons, is the absence of the entolateral processes (Pl. XII. fig. 3, _i_) in the Dodo’s sternum: but _Didunculus_ singularly exemplifies its nearer affinity to _Didus_ by a like absence of those processes; only the sternal margins behind the ectolateral processes (ib. fig. 1, _h_), instead of converging with a slight convexity to an obtuse apex, as in Pl. VI., describe a concavity, through an expansion of the posterior truncate end of the breast-bone. The sternum of _Didunculus_ may be said to show one pair of posterior notches (Pl. XII. fig. 1, _f_), that of other Pigeons two pairs (ib. fig. 3, _f_ _f′_); but the sternum of _Didus_, which is relatively broader, shows no other trace of the anterior notch (Pl. VI. _f_) than is afforded by the rounded angle at which the ectolateral process (_h_) rises from the bone. Although the costal margin is relatively shorter in Doves of flight than in the Dodo, again an intermediate condition is manifested by _Didunculus_ as compared with _Goura_, in which latter Dove there are articular surfaces for three sternal ribs (Pl. XII. fig. 3, _o_ 1, 2, 3), whilst in _Didunculus_ there are four (ib. fig. 1, _c_). _Didunculus_ also exhibits, more strongly than _Goura_, the obtuse ridges (ib. fig. 2, _r_) converging like buttresses from the outer wall of the coracoid groove to the fore part of the keel, where they subside. In _Didunculus_ there is a pneumatic foramen exterior to the coracoid groove, corresponding with _p_, fig. 4, Pl. IV., which I do not find in the sternum of _Goura_; but in the Crown-pigeons the pneumatic foramina along the middle line of the upper surface of the sternum are conspicuous; they are confined to the fore part of that surface in _Didunculus_ (Pl. XII. fig. 1).

In the direction of the ectolateral processes _Goura_ (ib. fig. 3, _h_) is intermediate between _Didunculus_ and _Didus_. The pectoral ridge on the outer surface of the sternum, continued backward from the outer end of the coracoid groove, is adaptively better marked in Pigeons of flight than in the Dodo; and the pair of ridges are more nearly parallel in their backward course, not so convergent as in _Didus_. In _Goura_ the subcostal ridge is better marked than in _Didunculus_. In no Dove of flight is the body of the sternum so broad and hollow as in _Didus_ (Pl. XI. fig. 4); in this respect the Vulture more nearly resembles the Dodo, as it does also in the more convex anterior contour of the keel: but the vulturine sternum does not lose breadth as it extends backward; it is a square-shaped shield in birds of prey, shorter in proportion to its breadth, with a greater extent of costal process and margin, and with the ectolateral processes, when they exist, extending backward as far as the hinder border of the bone. In the thorough quest of resemblances to the Dodo’s sternum which I have made through the class of Birds, I came upon an unexpected superficial likeness to it in the sternum of a Night-jar (_Podargus humeralis_). The ectolateral processes (Pl. XII. fig. 4, _h_) rise behind the moderately extended costal borders, _c_; and beyond them the body of the sternum converges to an obtuse end, with a contour similar to that in _Didus_. Moreover the coracoid grooves are divided from each other by a free concave border, less deep and extensive, indeed, than in _Didus_, but as free from any trace of episternal projection. The ectolateral processes, however, are extended backward to beyond the sternal body; and this part usually shows a pair of small entolateral notches, _f′_, of which one was present on one side in the specimen figured.

Through the reduction of the coracoids in all flightless birds, there is an interval between their sternal articulations: this is long and concave in the Dodo, but is longest and most deeply concave in _Apteryx_; it is long but almost straight in _Rhea_; in _Casuarius_ and _Dromaius_ it is narrow but deeply notched; in _Struthio_ it developes a short episternal process. In no Grallatorial sternum with both ecto- and ento-lateral processes (as e.g. _Otis_, _Œdicnemus_, _Charadrius_) do the former project, as in _Didus_ and the Rasores, immediately behind the costal margin, but they are continued, parallel with the keel, from the outer and posterior angle of the sternum, distant from the costal margin. In old Plovers the entolateral process joins the contiguous angle of the sternal body, and converts the inner notch into a foramen.

In the breast-bone of the Dodo we plainly discern the Columbine modification of the Gallinaceous type, simplified in the minor development of those parts relating adaptively to the power of flight, and expanded and excavated for the support of the larger gizzard with its heavier grindstones[34].

In comparing the pelvis of _Didunculus_ and _Goura_ (Pl. XII. fig. 5) with that of _Didus_ (Pl. VII. fig. 1), the correspondences are:—in the general shape, proportions and disposition of the ilia; in the articulation therewith of the last pair of moveable ribs, and of the short straight confluent pleurapophyses of the three succeeding sacral vertebræ; then follow, as in _Didus_, three vertebræ without pleurapophyses, these reappearing in the next two with their extremities converging to abut against a prominence of the inner surface of the ilium in the same relative position. The difference here is in the two equal and more slender rib-buttresses, in place of the single stronger one, which is the more common structure in _Didus_; but in _Goura_ I have noted an instance in which it agreed with the _Didunculus_ on the left side, and with _Didus_ on the right, in the last-specified character. In the Crown-pigeons, also, there is an indication of the transverse ridge marking off the under part of the centrum of the first sacral from the rest, and those that follow are less expanded than in the Dodlets; moreover in _Didunculus_ they show a median canal instead of a ridge, while the ridge is feebly indicated here and there and there is no canal in _Goura_. In neither _Didunculus_ nor _Goura_ do the sacral centrums behind the last rib-abutments diminish in breadth so suddenly as in _Didus_: in both the winged Pigeons the hinder part of the pelvic cavity is relatively deeper and narrower than in _Didus_; in both, also, the upper and anterior concave tracks of the ilia are deeper; and in _Didunculus_ the mesial borders do not attain the neural crest, but leave a pair of open longitudinal canals at that part of the pelvis; in _Goura_ those margins reach the neural crest, but do not overtop it at any part. In _Goura_ the acetabula are more in advance of a median position than in _Didunculus_, _Columba magnifica_, or _Didus_. Although the ischiadic foramina are completed by terminal confluence of the ilium and ischium in _Dromaius_ and _Casuarius_, yet the length of those foramina (which are unclosed) in _Struthio_ and _Apteryx_, concomitant with the greater relative length of the pelvis, shows the difference of _Didus_ from the cursorial Brevipennates in this part of the skeleton. The ischia of the winged Pigeons resemble those of the Dodo; but the inner longitudinal ridge is more strongly marked in _Didunculus_: in the _Goura_ it is less developed than in _Didus_; the bone is longer also in proportion to its breadth, and the ischiadic foramen is longer and narrower: the proportions of that in _Didunculus_ are more like those in _Didus_. In _Didunculus_ the pubis coalesces with the ischium behind the small obturator foramen, but leaves a second or posterior elongate ischio-pubic vacuity. The greatest amount of resemblances with the pelvis of the Dodo is found in that of different members of the Dove-tribe.

In comparing the pelvis of the Dodo with that of the Vulture (Pl. XII. fig. 6), we find in the latter that the first two confluent sacral vertebræ; supporting moveable ribs are succeeded by several with short abutting ribs, the extent of this part of the sacrum being nearly one-half of the whole, instead of one-fourth as in _Didus_ and the Doves. The reappearance of rib-abutments after four ribless sacrals is in the posterior third of the sacrum, and they are continued to the end of that bone from the last four vertebræ of the series, constituting a very marked difference, both as to number and the character of the vertebræ in the sacral part of the pelvis.

With regard to the iliac bones, the anterior concave track occupies two-thirds of the extent of the bone in _Vultur_, not one-half as in _Didus_ and most Doves; the breadth of the posterior parts of the ilia with the intervening sacrum in the Vulture is relatively less than in the winged Doves, and differs in a greater degree from that characteristic part in the sacrum of _Didus_. In _Ciconia_ the antacetabular part of the pelvis is relatively longer, and the iliac bones are more expanded anteriorly. In _Platalea_ the proportions are more nearly those in _Didus_. In _Otis_ the ilia touch the fore part of the sacro-spinal ridge, but leave both posterior and anterior apertures of the ilio-neural canals widely open. In _Œdicnemus_ and _Charadrius_ they are grooves, the ilia not reaching the sacral spines. The external concavity of the ilium is longer, narrower, and deeper, in most waders, than in _Didus_. In _Eudyptes_ and _Aptenodytes_ the ilia are more expanded anteriorly, but the whole pelvis is narrower and longer than in _Didus_. The Gar-fowl (_Alca impennis_)[35], _Uria_, _Podiceps_, and _Colymbus_, all show still longer and narrower proportions of the pelvis.

In the Doves of flight the proportions and relative position of the three compartments of the cranial cavity differ from those in the Dodo. Both the pros- and mes-encephalic ones are proportionally larger than the epencephalic; and the mesencephalic compartment lies more directly below the prosencephalic one. A very thin stratum of finely cellular diploë divides the two tables of the skull along the medial line of the upper surface: it is thicker between the orbits. The falcial ridge at the inner surface of the prosencephalic roof resembles that in _Didus_. The tentorial ridge bifurcates halfway down, the front portion dividing, almost horizontally, the pros- from the mesencephalic compartment, the hinder and more obtuse ridge dividing, almost vertically, the mes- from the epencephalic compartment. The angle of bifurcation is slightly produced and obtuse, but represents very feebly the tentorial tuberosity (Pl. XI. fig. 1, _o_) in the Dodo: from it, in _Goura_, is continued backward the arch of bone formed by the superior semicircular canal, above which is the groove for the venous sinus, as in _Didus_. The internal auditory fossa is less deep than in _Didus_: above it is a similarly vertically oblong cerebellar pit. The nerve-foramina correspond with those in _Didus_: the entocarotid canal opens into a rather deeper sella in _Columba palumbus_.

On comparing the cranial cavity, as exposed by a vertical longitudinal section in the Dodo (Pl. XI. fig. 1), with that of a Dinornis similarly exposed[36], the first difference is the smaller proportional depth of the diploë in the larger wingless bird, which is not greater over the prosencephalic than over the epencephalic compartment; next may be noticed the larger relative size of the former compartment, indicating the larger cerebrum of the Dinornis, then the absence of the tentorial tuberosity, the sharper and more produced superior part of the tentorial ridge arching transversely between the cerebrum and cerebellum, the smaller internal auditory fossa, and the deeper sella: the mesencephalic compartment, or cavity for the optic lobe, is less in proportion to the prosencephalic compartment than in _Didus_; it holds, however, a similar relative position: finally, the cerebellar pit, above the internal auditory fossa, is wanting in the Dinornis.

The Dodo agrees with the Doves in possessing a slender furculum, forming an acute angle: it resembles _Columba galeata_, more especially, in the halves of that bone being united by ligament below, and forming separate styles or “clavicles.”

The humerus of the Goura closely repeats most of the characters described in that of the Dodo; but its length is proportionally greater, being 3 inches 9 lines, nearly equal to that of the sternum or pelvis, whereas the humerus of the Dodo is little more than half the length of either sternum or pelvis. The processes for the attachment of the muscles are, nevertheless, fully as strongly developed in _Didus_ (Pl. VIII. figs. 12 & 14) as in the volant Doves (Pl. XII. figs. 8 & 9, _Goura_); that, indeed, which is a ridge (_r_) on the back part of the shaft in _Didus_, is a mere rough surface in _Goura_, and does not show in _Didunculus_. The pneumatic fossa, which varies in depth in the two humeri of the Dodo, is in both relatively larger and shallower than in _Goura_. The pectoral process is thinner, but relatively rather more produced, in _Didunculus_. The humerus in _Œdicnemus_, _Otis_, and _Charadrius_ has a more longitudinally extended, thinner, and more produced pectoral ridge than in _Didus_ and the _Columbidæ_; there is a more marked ectocondyloid tuberosity, which in _Charadrius_ becomes a pointed process.

There is nothing to be gained by giving the details of the more striking differences which the humerus presents in Penguins, Auks, and birds of prey, as compared with that bone in the Dodo; but a few words may be recorded of the comparison of the humerus of the Dodo with that of the flightless bird of New Zealand so nearly approaching to it in size, which bird is described in the 5th volume of the ‘Transactions’ of the Society under the name of _Cnemiornis_ (p. 395, pl. 66. figs. 7–10). In that extinct species, although the humerus is 5½ inches in length, the parts indicative of the forces by which it was worked are comparatively feebly developed. The ulnar tuberosity is narrower, thicker, more obtuse, and its base has neither the upper nor lower excavation; it rises above the articular head, which is less prominent and narrower than in _Didus_; the pectoral ridge is shorter and situated lower down upon the shaft, not on the same level with the radial tuberosity as it is in _Didus_; the distal articulation is of the same size as in _Didus_, but neither the radial nor the ulnar convexity is so prominent or well-defined.

The ulna of the Dodo is shorter absolutely, and much more so proportionally, than in the Goura and most other volant Doves. In these it exceeds the humerus by about one-fourth its own length; in _Didunculus_ (Pl. III.) it is a little longer than the humerus; in the Dodo (ib.) it is shorter than the humerus. The length of the ulna in _Goura coronata_ is 4 inches 6 lines; it is more bent than in the Dodo; the quill-tubercles, seven or eight in number, are more prominent; nevertheless the rough depression for the insertion of the chief flexor is less deep and less defined. The plumed winglet of the Dodo would seem, therefore, to have been frequently and forcibly moved.

In comparing the femur of the Dodo with that of the largest Dove, the bone appears gigantic. The length of the femur in _Goura coronata_ (Pl. XII. fig. 11) is but 3 inches 3 lines, and it is more slender in proportion to its length than in the Dodo; it, however, repeats the few characteristics, if they may be so termed, of the Dodo’s femur. It has the pneumatic foramen in the same position, perhaps proportionally larger; it has the same large oblong surface for the ligament at the head of the bone; the great trochanter has the same form and disposition, but is not quite so much produced anteriorly; there is a slight depression instead of a ridge for the trochanter minor; the fore part of the inner condyle is relatively thicker and less produced. The femur in _Otis_ and _Œdicnemus_ has a thicker and shorter trochanter major, & more narrow and shallow rotular channel; it is shorter in comparison with the tibia, and more especially with the metatarsus, than in _Didus_ and the Doves.

The femur of _Aptornis otidiformis_[37] is of the same size as that of the Dodo; but it has no pneumatic foramen, the head is more hemispheroid and inclined forward, the ligamentous pit is deeper and more circular, the supracervical articular surface is not defined from that of the head, there is a wider and deeper depression at the fore part of the proximal end of the femur, and a more prominent tuberosity on the back part; the ridge continued from the back part of the shaft to that of the inner condyle is more produced and sharper in _Aptornis_, the fore part of the same condyle is less produced.

The femur in _Cnemiornis_[38] and _Dinornis_[39] is much thicker, in proportion to its length, than in either _Aptornis_ or _Didus_. In _Pezophaps_ the great trochanterian ridge rises higher above the neck, and the shaft has a more uniform thickness, with the inner contour less concave, than in _Didus_.

The characters which have been noted at the proximal and distal ends of the tibia of _Didus_ are repeated in those of the tibia of the _Goura_. The difference in size is more marked than in the femur; the length of the tibia of _Goura coronata_ is 4 inches 7 lines, and its shaft is more slender, in proportion to its length (Pl. XII. fig. 13), than in _Didus_ (Pl. X.). The tendency to a trihedral form of the shaft is less marked in _Goura_; the anterior prominences of the distal condyles are thicker in proportion to the intervening fossa.

In the Vulture the fibular ridge is more parallel with the long axis of the shaft than in _Didus_; the tendinal canal is less cylindrical, has an oblique course from the middle of the anterior surface towards the inner condyle; the fore parts of both distal condyles are less produced and less convex; the distal end is narrower from before backwards in proportion to its breadth; both extremities of the bone are less expanded in proportion to the shaft than in the Dodo.

In the great Plover (_Œdicnemus crepitans_) the tibia, as in other Grallæ, is longer in proportion to its thickness than in _Didus_; the epicnemial process rises higher above and projects further in front of the condylar surfaces before it divides into the pro- and ectocnemial plates; and these are relatively more produced. The fibular ridge is shorter in proportion to the length of the tibia, is more prominent, and more parallel with the axis of the shaft. The distal condyles project further backward than in _Didus_. The tibia in _Charadrius_, _Otis_, _Tantalus_, _Grus_, _Ciconia_, _Mycteria_, _Porphyrio_, opposes similar or equivalent differences to those in _Œdicnemus_, against the affinity of _Didus_ to any of those Grallæ.

In the comparison of the tibia of this extinct flightless bird with that of the _Cnemiornis_, the wonderful development of the plates and processes at the proximal end of the bones in the New Zealand bird is strikingly manifested. In _Cnemiornis_ the fibular ridge runs in a line with the shaft, and does not incline from above obliquely forward as in _Didus_ and the Doves; the ridge on the outer side of the distal fourth of the bone is stronger and sharper in _Cnemiornis_; the tendinal canal is transversely elliptical, medial in position, with a slight inward inclination; the intercondyloid fossa is much wider in _Cnemiornis_. The differences, indeed, in all the characters of the tibia, as compared with _Didus_, in the Vultures, Plovers, Penguins, and terrestrial flightless birds tend to render more instructive and convincing the resemblances which Pigeons present in the same characters to the extinct Mauritian bird.

§ 4. _Conclusion._

The affinities or place in nature of the Dodo being thus determined by the characters of its skeleton, but few words remain to be said on the bearings of present knowledge of this species upon other zoological generalizations.

The researches and observations of naturalists have been carried out to such an extent as to support the conclusion that the _Didus ineptus_ does not now live in any part of the world, and that it never existed save in that part of which the island of Mauritius may be a remnant. Consequently the species there originated; and the most intelligible conception of its mode of origin is that to which I have alluded in the description of the brain-case (p. 39).

The Dodo exemplifies Buffon’s idea[40] of the origin of species through departure from a more perfect original type by degeneration; and the known consequences of the disuse of one locomotive organ and extra use of another indicate the nature of the secondary causes that may have operated in the creation of this species of bird, agreeably with Lamarck’s philosophical conception of the influence of such physiological conditions of atrophy and hypertrophy[41]. The young of all Doves are hatched with wings as small as in the Dodo: that species retained the immature character. The main condition making possible the production and continuance of such a species in the island of Mauritius was the absence of any animal that could kill a great bird incapable of flight. The introduction of such a destroyer became fatal to the species which had lost such means of escape[42]. The Mauritian Doves (_Columba nitidissima_ and _C. meyeri_) that retained their powers of flight continue to exist there.

As I have no reason to offer why one kind of Pigeon should have retained and another lost its powers of flight, nor am able to adduce a particle of evidence of the hypothetical degrees of diminution of the wing-bones to their stunted proportions in _Didus_, any more than in _Dinornis_, I feel that in the foregoing remarks I lay myself open to the rebuke of fellow-labourers who may think with the able authors who last treated of the present subject.

They warn their readers to “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 organization 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 organized 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 ideas entertained by Buffon and his disciples”[43].

Nevertheless the truth, as we have or feel it, should be told. In the end it may prove to be the more acceptable service. The _Didus ineptus_, L., through its degenerate or imperfect structure, howsoever acquired, has perished. What have the stigmatizers of Buffon to offer in lieu of his theory as applied to the origin of this species of bird? They begin by asking, “Why does the whale possess the germs of teeth which are never used for mastication? and why was the Dodo endowed with wings at all, when those wings were useless for locomotion? This question,” they own, “is too wide and too deep to plunge into at present.” They nevertheless proceed to remark, “These apparently anomalous facts are really the indications of laws which the Creator has been pleased to follow in the construction of organized 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 teeth, and the idea of a Bird the presence of wings, we may then comprehend why in the Whale and the Dodo these organs are merely _suppressed_, not wholly _annihilated_”[44].

This notion of type-forms or centres, unfortunately, has not merely relation to abstract biological speculations or theories, but to practical questions on which the true progress of Natural History vitally depends. If such types do exist, the National Museum, it is argued, may be restricted to their exhibition: and so our legislators and the public were assured by the Professor of Natural History in the Government School of Mines[45], when the question was before the “House” four years ago. I have let slip no suitable occasion[46] to combat and expose what has seemed to me to be both an erroneous and mischievous view, most obstructive to the best interests of the science; and, standing alone as I seemed to do on this point in the array of evidence before the “Parliamentary Committee on the British Museum, 1860,” I was glad to find my views on type-forms adopted and paraphrased by the President of the British Association in his Inaugural Address at the Meeting at Nottingham[47], in the present year.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.

PLATE I.

Ideal Scene in the island of Mauritius before its discovery, in 1598, by the Dutch, founded on:—

Fig. 1. Picture of the Dodo, by Roelandt Savery, 1626, in the Royal Gallery of Berlin.

Fig. 2. Fac-simile of R. Savery’s Picture of the Dodo, in the possession of the late Wm. J. Broderip, Esq., F.R.S. (no date).

Fig. 3. Picture of the Dodo, by R. Savery, 1628, in the Imperial Collection of the Belvedere, Vienna.

Each figure is coloured, and of the exact size, as in the original paintings.

PLATE II.

Two views of the Dodlet (_Didunculus strigirostris_, Peale; _Gnathodon_, Jardine), natural size, from the living bird, obtained at the Samoan or Navigators’ Islands, and transmitted from Sydney, New South Wales, by George Bennett, M.D., F.L.S.[48], to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, in 1864, where the paintings, of which the above are fac-similes, were made for the present work. A sketch of the dried head of the Dodo in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, of rather less than half the natural size, is introduced into the picture, now in the Author’s possession[49].

PLATE III.

Fig. 1. Side view of the skeleton of the Dodo (_Didus ineptus_, L.), with an outline of the bird as represented in the oil-painting presented to the British Museum by Edwards, Naturalist and Librarian of the Royal Society, into whose possession it came at the decease, in 1753, of Sir Hans Sloane, P.R.S., with the statement, or tradition, that the painting had been made, of the natural size, from a living specimen of the Dodo, in Holland. The bones represented in profile, of the natural size[50], testify to the accuracy of the form and proportions of the Dodo given in the painting.

Fig. 2. An outline of the Samoan Dove or Dodlet (_Didunculus strigirostris_, Peale; _Gnathodon strigirostris_, Jardine[51]), of the natural size, from the specimen sent by Dr. G. Bennett, and living, in 1864, in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, with a view of the skeleton, corresponding with that of the Dodo.

PLATE IV.

Fig. 1. Front view of the fourth (or first of the three confluent) dorsal vertebræ (centrum and neural arch).

Fig. 2. Vertebral rib, or pleurapophysis, of the same vertebra, front view.

Fig. 3. Sternal rib, or hæmapophysis, of the same vertebra: _a_, outer side; _b_, upper or pleural end; _c_, lower or sternal end; _d_, front margin; _e_, inner surface.

Fig. 4. Front view of sternum, or connate mass of hæmal spines, including that of the same (fourth dorsal) vertebra.

Fig. 5. Inner surface of an anterior pleurapophysis, with coalesced appendage, _a_.

Fig. 6. Oblique view of ditto, ditto.

Fig. 7. Anterior pleurapophysis, with appendage, _a_, front view: _c_, capitular end; _d_, tubercular end; _f_, hæmal end; 7 _a_, outer surface; 7 _b_, inner surface.

Fig. 8. An anterior pleurapophysis, front view.

Fig. 9. Posterior surface of the upper end of a posterior pleurapophysis: 9 _a_, body and lower end of ditto.

Fig. 10. Part of a pleurapophysis which has been broken and healed.

Fig. 11. Lower end of a posterior dorsal pleurapophysis, with connate rudiment of appendage, _a_.

Fig. 12. Hæmapophysis.

PLATE V[52].

Fig. 1. Fourth, fifth, and sixth dorsal vertebræ, anchylosed, side view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, ditto, upper view.

Fig. 3. Ditto, ditto, under view.

Fig. 4. Ditto, ditto, back view.

Fig. 5. Ditto, ditto, mutilated, of another Dodo.

Fig. 6. Anterior dorsal vertebra, side view.

Fig. 7. Ditto, front view; _pl_, outline of heads of floating rib.

Fig. 8. Penultimate cervical vertebra, side view.

Fig. 9. Ditto, back view.

Fig. 10. Middle cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 11. Ditto, under view.

Fig. 12. Axis, or second cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 13. Ditto, under view.

PLATE VI.

Fig. 1. Under view of sternum.

Fig. 2. Upper or inner view.

Fig. 3. Back view.

PLATE VII.

Fig. 1. Under or inner view of pelvis.

Fig. 2. Upper or outer view of pelvis.

PLATE VIII.

Fig. 1. Middle cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 2. Fifth cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 3. Fourth cervical vertebra, under view.

Fig. 4. Right coracoid and clavicle.

Fig. 5. Left coracoid and clavicle.

Fig. 6. Right scapula, outer view.

Fig. 7. Right scapula, inner view.

Fig. 8. Left moiety of scapular arch, outer view.

Fig. 9. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 10. Upper articular end of right coracoid.

Fig. 11. Lower ditto.

Fig. 12. Left humerus, anconal or back surface.

Fig. 13. Left humerus, ulnar or inner surface.

Fig. 14. Left ditto, palmar or front surface. A. Ditto, proximal or upper end. B. Ditto, radial side of upper half. C. Ditto, distal end.

Fig. 15. Right radius.

Fig. 16. Right ulna, inner or radial side.

Fig. 17. Ditto, outer or ulnar side.

PLATE IX.

Fig. 1. Left femur, front view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 3. Ditto, back view.

Fig. 4. Ditto, upper end.

Fig. 5. Ditto, lower end.

PLATE X.

Fig. 1. Left tibia, front view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 3. Ditto, back view.

Fig. 4. Ditto, upper end.

Fig. 5. Ditto, lower end.

Fig. 6. Left fibula, outer view.

Fig. 7. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 8. Ditto, upper view.

PLATE XI.

Fig. 1. Longitudinal vertical section of mutilated skull.

Fig. 2. Ditto of third cervical vertebra.

Fig. 3. Ditto of lower cervical vertebra.

Fig. 4. Transverse vertical section of sternum.

Fig. 5. Longitudinal section of humerus.

Fig. 6. Ditto of upper end of femur.

Fig. 7. Ditto of lower end of femur.

Fig. 8. Ditto of upper end of tibia.

Fig. 9. Ditto of lower end of tibia.

Fig. 10. Ditto of metatarsus.

PLATE XII.

Fig. 1. Sternum of _Didunculus_, upper view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, front view.

Fig. 3. Sternum of _Goura_, upper view.

Fig. 4. Sternum of _Podargus humeralis_, under view.

Fig. 5. Pelvis of _Goura_, under or inner view, half natural size.

Fig. 6. Pelvis of _Gyps_ (Vulture), under or inner view, half natural size.

Fig. 7. Left moiety of scapular arch, _Goura_.

Fig. 8. Left humerus of _Goura_, anconal surface.

Fig. 9. Ditto, palmar surface of upper end.

Fig. 10. Ditto, palmar surface of lower end.

Fig. 11. Right femur of _Goura_, front view.

Fig. 12. Ditto, back view of upper end, and back view of lower end.

Fig. 13. Right tibia and fibula of _Goura_, front view.

All the figures are of the natural size, save when otherwise expressed. The letters are explained in the text.

THE END.

PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.

[Illustration: PLATE. II.

E. W. Robinson pinx M & N Hanhart, imp. J. Erxleben, lith.

DIDUNCULUS.]

[Illustration: From Nat on Stone by J. Erxleben.

M. & N. Hanhart, imp.

DIDUNCULUS STRIGIROSTRIS. _Jde_ DIDUS INEPTUS. _L._]

[Illustration: _PL. IV._

_E. W. Robinson del._ _W. West imp._]

[Illustration: PLATE. V.

From nat on Stone, by J. Erxleben. M & N. Hanhart, imp.]

[Illustration: _PL. VI._

_E. W. Robinson del._ _W. West imp._]

[Illustration: PLATE. VII.

J. Smit. lith. M & N. Hanhart. imp.]

[Illustration: PLATE. VIII.

From nat on Stone, by J. Erxleben. M. & N. Hanhart, imp.]

[Illustration: PLATE. IX.

_Fig 1_

_Fig 2_

_Fig 3_

_Fig 4_

_Fig 5_

J. Smit lith. M & N. Hanhart, imp.]

[Illustration: PLATE. X.

_Fig 1_

_Fig 2_

_Fig 3_

_Fig 4_

_Fig 5_

_Fig 6_

_Fig 7_

_Fig 8_

J. Smit. lith. M. & N. Hanhart imp.]

[Illustration: PLATE. XI.

J. Smit. lith. M. & N. Hanhart. imp.]

[Illustration: PLATE. XII.

from nat on stone, by J. Erxleben. M & N Hanhart imp.]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] By +William John Broderip+, Esq., F.R.S. The part containing the article was published in 1836, the volume (ix.) appeared in 1837.

[2] “So in Willughby, but the print is somewhat indistinct, and there maybe error. In the original the words are ‘_Walgh-Vogel_, hoc est, nauseam movens, partim quod’ &c., the word therefore is an interpolation.”

[3] These and other grotesque figures, which may be seen, copied, in Strickland’s History of the Dodo (‘Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848), from the old authors cited by Broderip, are mere matters of curiosity, and are here omitted as devoid of scientific value.

[4] This head, in the condition of a skull, has subsequently been discovered at Copenhagen.—R. O.

[5] The outline of the Dodo in this painting is given, of the natural size, in Pl. III. of the present work; the reduced woodcut (_tom. cit._ p. 51, copied by Strickland, _op. cit._ p. 28) is, therefore, not here reproduced.—R. O.

[6] “This curious statement is extracted in the recent edition of Sir Thomas Brown’s works by Wilkins: published by Pickering.” [8vo, 1836, vol. i. p. 369, vol. ii. 173. The reference, in Strickland (_op. cit._ p. 22), to vol. i. p. 369. is to a Letter by Sir Hamon L’Estrange to Dr. Browne, not containing any allusion to the Dodo.—R. O.]

[7] Art. +Dodo+, Penny Cyclopædia, vol. ix. p. 62 (1837).

[8] “London, 4to, Reeve and Co., 1848.”

[9] “Vol. ix. p. 47 (1837).”

[10] “Penny Cyclopædia, vol. xxiii. (1842).”

[11] Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, vol. iv.