Scientific Intelligence — Zoology. 405 



could not be supposed to be the larva of an Echinoderm, even after 

 the observations of M. Sars. Having stated this, M. MuUer enters 

 upon the description of the anatomical structure of P. paradoxus, 

 and gives a multitude of details full of interest, but in which we can- 

 not follow him. 



He then passes to another class of the larva of Echinoderm which 

 he has been able to follow to their metamorphosis, and he has as- 

 certained, without the smallest doubt, that they belong to the genus 

 Echinus, although he has not succeeded in determining the first 

 stages of their development on issuing from the egg. These larvae 

 appear, notwithstanding the difference of their definite forms, to be 

 modelled on the same plan as those of the Ophiura}, and this is very 

 apparent from the anatomical details into which M. MuUer enters, 

 details which are accompanied with very beautiful plates, indispen- 

 sable to enable the reader to understand all the interesting details 

 which the work contains. — VInstitut, No. 696, p. 159. 



15. On the Cranium of the Dodo in the Museum of Copenhagen. 

 By M. Hamel. — I have lately received, says M. Hamel, a cast of 

 the head of the Dodo preserved in the Museum of Natural History 

 at Copenhagen, and I have placed it in the cabinet of the Academy 

 of Sciences of St Petersbourg. This head was first figured by 

 Paludanus; it was afterwards, in 1651, obtained by Olearius for 

 Duke Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein of Enkhuysen at Gottorff ; 

 it was deposited in a museum described in a work dated 1666. The 

 objects of this museum were conveyed, under King Frederick IV., 

 and during the war with Sweden, to Copenhagen, where this head 

 has remained, till lately, unknown among a multitude of other ob- 

 jects. As I have had an opportunity of examining the head of the 

 Dodo of Oxford, which was obtained from the Tradescant collection, 

 and of which I possess a cast, I can compare it with the Copenhagen 

 specimen, 'the only other one now known, although it wants the lower 

 mandible. 



It will be observed, in the first instance, that Olearius' descrip- 

 tions of 1666 and 1674, and those recently given by M. Lehmann 

 of Copenhagen, are insufficient to give an exact idea of the remains 

 of a bird so remarkable. A comparison of the heads of Oxford and 

 Copenhagen shews, that although the former be much stronger than 

 the latter, they both agree in their various details. The Oxford head 

 is still covered with skin, having been cut without care in 1755 and 

 dried, while that of Copenhagen is a preparation of the bony parts, 

 and consequently presents the structure of the bones, which is invi- 

 sible in the Oxford specimen. We do not observe in the Copenha- 

 gen specimen the characteristic broadness of forehead and the angle 

 of about 140 degrees which it forms with the beak, nor the immo- 

 derately large diameter of the whole cranium, which are so striking 

 in the Oxford example. The latter measures from the occiput to 

 the extremity of the beak (the gnathotheca excepted, which is nearly 



