DODO. 



DODO. 



370 



their stomachs stones of an ash colour, of divers figures and mag- 

 nitudes; 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 Ktmst Kanmier,' 

 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 (' Musacum 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 cucullatua 

 by Nierembergius ; by Clusius, Gallus yoJlinaceiis pereyrinus ; 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 BarbaoV p. 61), speaking of 

 him, saith, that he will commonly flv out to sea to see what ships are 

 coming to land, and so return. Whereas the Dodo is hardly a vola- 

 tile bird, having little or 110 wings, except auch 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 i 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 in figured by him (tab. 6), 

 :ind 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 Lurita- 

 norum, Cygntu cucullattu, 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 

 Tradescantianiim. There were, it seems, three Tradescants grand- 

 father, father, and son. [TRADESCANT, in LIT. AND Bioo. 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 ' Musscum,' 

 one of ' Joannes Tradescantus pater ' and the other of ' Joannes 

 Tradeseantua 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 col- 

 lected, 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 Tra- 

 descant and his wife. Tradeacfint 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 rent of Tradescant's curiosities there can be no doubt. Hyde 

 (' Religionis Veterum Persarum, &c., Historia,' 1 700) 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, Musan 

 Procuntog," 1684 (Plott being the keeper), the entry of the bird is 

 ' N"'i. '29. Oalltis gallinaceus peregrinus Clusii," &c. In a Catalogue 

 made subsequently to 1755, it is stated that " The numbers from 



NAT. HIST. DIV. 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 : " Ilia quibus nullus in margiue 

 assignatur numerus a Musseo 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. Joum.,' 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 commemo- 

 ration ; 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 beeu per- 

 mitted 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 prosecu- 

 ting this inquiry, and who had it taken down for the purpose, we 

 present to our readers. 



It lias 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 iu 

 Holland from the living bird brought from St. Maurice's Island iu 

 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 ; ami 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, Eerivain Principal des Hopitaux au Port-Louis de 1'Isle 

 de France, writes as follows in his paper ' Sur les Oiseaux Monstrueux 

 nommiSs Dronte, Dodo, Cygne Capuchonne', Solitaire, et Oiseau de 

 Nazare, et sur la petite Isle de Sable a 50 lieues environ de Mada- 

 gascar :' " 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,' 

 underthe names of Droute, Dodo, Hooded Swan (Cygne Capuchonnu), 

 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 sbine 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 pros un siecle) no one has here seen an animal of 

 this species. But it is very probable tht 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 Degout ' (Waluk-Voegel), because they w^re 

 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 1'An 1778,' 

 torn. 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 



