OSTEOLOGY OF THE DODO. 81 
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” *. 
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”*. 
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*, when 
the question was before the “ House” four years ago. I have let slip no suitable occa- 
sion to combat and expose what has seemed to me to be both an erroneous and mis- 
chievous view, most obstructive to the best interests of the science; and, standing alone 
1 Strickland and Melville, ‘The Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848, p. 34. 
2 Op. cit. p. 34. 
3 See letter in ‘The Times’ of May 21st, 1862, advocating the limitation of the National Museum of Natural 
History to “six rooms,” signed Tuomas H. Huxrey, F.R.S. 
4 Reply to the aboye in ‘The Times’ of May 2nd, 1866, and in both editions (1861, 1862) of my ‘ Discourse 
on the Extent and Aims of a National Museum of Natural History.’ ‘Some naturalists urge that it is only 
necessary to exhibit the type-form of each genus or family. But they do not tell us what is such ‘ type- 
form.’ It is a metaphysical term, which implies that the Creative Force had a guiding pattern for the con- 
struction of all the varying or divergent forms in each genus or family. The idea is devoid of proof; and those 
who are loudest in advocating the restriction of exhibited specimens to ‘ types’ have contributed least to lighten 
the difficulties of the practical curator in making the selection.” (Ed, 1862, p. 24; see also pp. 26-34.) 
VOL. VI.—PART II. M 
