IS8 DODO 



possession of the Zoological Society of London (formerly Broderip's), 

 that in the Schonborn collection at Pommersfelden near Bamberg, 

 and that belonging to Dr. Seyffery at Stuttgart are undated, but 

 were probably all painted about the same time (viz. 1626 to 1628). 

 The large picture in the British Museum, once belonging to Sir 

 Hans Sloane, by an unknown artist, but supposed to be by Roelandt 

 Savery, is also undated ; while the still larger one at Oxford (con- 

 sidered to be by the younger Savery) bears a much later date, 

 1651. Undated also is a picture said to be by Pieter Holsteyn, 

 and in the possession of Dr. A. van der Willige at Haarlem in 

 Holland. 



In 1628 we have the evidence of the first English observer of 

 the bird — one Emanuel Altham, who mentions it in two letters 

 written on the same day from Mauritius to his brother at home. 

 These, through the intervention of the late Dr. J. B. Wilmot, were 

 brought to light.^ In one the Avriter says : " You shall receue . . . 

 a strange fowle : which I had at the Hand Mauritius called by ye 

 portingalls a Do Do : which for the rareness thereof I hope wilbe 

 welcome to you." The passage in the other letter is to the same 

 effect, with the addition of the words "if it Hue." Nothing more 

 is known of this valuable consignment. In the same fleet with 

 Altham sailed Herbert, whose Travels ran through several editions 

 and have been long quoted. It is plain that he could not 

 have reached Mauritius till 1629, though 1627 has been usually 

 assigned as the date of his visit. The fullest account he gives of 

 the bird is in his edition of 1638, and in the curiously affected style 

 of many writers of the period. It will Ije enough to quote the 

 beginning : " The Dodo comes first to a description : here, and in 

 Dygarrois ^ (and no where else, that ever I could see or heare of) is 

 generated the Dodo (a Portuguize name it is, and has reference to 

 her simpleness), a Bird which for shape and rareness might be 

 call'd a Phoenix (wer't in Arabia :) " — the rest of the passage is 

 entertaining, but the whole has been often reprinted. Herbert, it 

 may be remarked, when he could see a possible Cymric similarity, 

 was weak as an etymologist, but his positive statement, corroborated 

 as it is by Altham, cannot be set aside, and hence we do not hesi- 

 tate to assign a Portuguese derivation for the word.^ Herbert also 

 gave a figure of the bird. 



1 Proc. Zool. Soc. IST'l, pp. 447-449. I am informed that on the death of Dr. 

 Wilmot these interesting papers (which, had they been his own property, he 

 would have willingly made over to some public library) were burnt. I had, 

 however, taken the precaution to have them accurately transcribed while they 

 were entrusted to my keeping. 



2 I.e. Rodriguez ; an error, as we shall see. 



3 Hence we venture to dispute Schlegel's supposed origin of "Dodo." The 

 Portuguese must have been the prior nomenclators, and if, as is most likely, some of 



