16 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES [Parr I. 
1646, and these words may therefore be likewise due to the officiousness of editors. The 
earliest use of the word Dodars may, after all, date from 1613, when Verhuffen’s Voyage 
was published ; here, however, it occurs under the corrupt form of Zo¢ersten. ‘There is little 
doubt that the name is derived from Dodoor, which in the Dutch language means a s/uggard, 
and is very applicable to the lazy habits and appearance of this bird. Dodaers is not impro- 
bably acant word among Dutch sailors, analogous to our term “udder,” and perhaps aims at 
expressiveness rather than elegance. Sir Thomas Herbert was the first to use this name in 
its modern form of Dodo. He tells us that it is a Portuguese word ; and, in fact, we find that 
doudo in the last-named language, means “foolish” or “simple.” But as none of the 
Portuguese voyagers appear to have mentioned the Dodo, nor even to have visited Mauritius 
subsequently to their first discovery of the island, such a derivation is highly improbable. 
It seems far more likely that Dodars is a genuine Dutch word, and that the pedantic Sir 
Thomas, who delighted in far-fetched etymologies, altered it to Dodo in order to make it fit 
with his philological theories. 
The derivation of the word Dronfe, is still more obscure than that of Dodo. German, 
Dutch, and Scandinavian dictionaries are alike unconscious of such a word. Can it be synony- 
mous in meaning with Dodoor, and allied to the English droze, in German, drohne ? 
4. In 1605, Clusius saw in the house of Pauwius, a professor at Leyden, a Dodo’s leg, 
which he describes as having the tarsus a little more than four inches long, and nearly four 
inches in circumference, covered with thick yellowish scales, broad in front, and smaller and 
darker coloured behind. The middle toe to the nail, was a little over two inches long, the 
two next were under two inches, and the hind toe one inch and a half; all the claws were thick, 
black, and less than an inch long, except that of the back toe, which exceeded an inch. All trace 
of this specimen is now lost. It is not mentioned in the ‘Catalogue of all the cheifest rarities 
in the publick Theater and Anatomie-Hall of the University of Leiden,’ 4to., Leiden, 1678 ; 
nor in a later edition of that Catalogue, published by Gerrard Blancken, in 1707; nor in the 
apparently contemporary tract entitled ‘Res curios et exoticae in Ambulacro Horti Acade- 
mici, Lugduno-Batavi conspicue ;’ nor in two old catalogues of wet preparations preserved 
at Leyden, all which are bound together in a volume in the Bodleian Library (Linc. F. 1. 31.); 
and M. de Blainville tells us that he sought for it in the Museums of Leyden and Amsterdam 
without success. The following is Clusius’ account :— 
“Verumenimverd, concimnaté et descripta jam qué potui fide hujus avis historia, illus crus genu tenus 
rescissum apud Cl. V. Petrum Pawium, primarium artis medicee in Academid Lugduno-Batava Profes- 
sorem videre contigit recens ¢ Mauritii Insula relatum. rat autem non valde longum, sed 4 genu 
usque ad pedis inflexionem paulld plus quam quatuor uncias superabat; ejus verd crassitudo magna, 
ut cujus ambitus pene quatuor uncias wquabat, crebrisque corticibus seu squamis tectum erat, prond 
quidem parte latioribus et flavescentibus, supm4 verd minoribus, et fuscis: pedis etiam digitorum 
prona pars singularibus iisque latis squamis predita, supina autem tota callosa: digiti satis breves pro 
tam crasso crure; nam maximi sive medii ad unguem usque longitudo binas uncias non admodim 
