158 DODO 
possession of the Zoological Society of London (formerly Broderip’s), 
that in the Schénborn 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.t In one the writer says: “ You shall receue... 
a strange fowle: which I had at the Iand 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 liue.” Nothing more 
is known of this valuable consignment. In the same fleet with 
Altham sailed Herbert, whose 7ravels 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 be enough to quote the 
beginning: “The Dodo comes first to a description: here, and in 
Dygarrois 2 (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. 1874, pp. 447-449. Iam 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 J.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 
