64 POSTSCRIPT. 
A notice of Savery’s Dodo-picture in the Belvedere at Vienna (see p. 80 supra) is given in the Archiv 
fiir Naturgeschichte, for 1848, p. 79, by Dr. L. J. Fitzinger, who there states that he has long known this 
interesting painting, and was on the point of publishing a fac-simile of it, when, hearing that this work 
was in course of preparation, he courteously resigned his intention, and contented himself with publishing 
a brief notice of its existence. He states that this picture measures sixteen by twenty-two inches, and repre- 
sents an ideal landscape with the fore-ground crowded with birds, some on land, and some in the water, 
all of which are accurately designed. 
Five weeks had elapsed since the last sheets of Part I. had gone to press, when, on May 16th, 1848, 
1 received (through the kindness of my friend and former fellow-traveller, Mr. W. J. Hamilton, P.R.G.S.) 
a pamphlet by Dr. Hamel, entitled “Der Dodo, die Hinsiedler, und der erdichtete Nazarvogel.” I am 
thus exact as to dates, in order that the similarity between many of Dr. Hamel’s inferences and my own 
may be attributed, not to plagiarism, but to the Unity which characterizes Truth. This memoir was read 
before the Petersburg Academy on January 9th, 1846, but has only just been published m the Bulletin 
Phys.—math. Acad. St. Petersb. vol. vii. no. 5,6. Dr. Hamel here gives a resumé of the historical and 
pictorial evidences respecting the Dodo and Solitaire, as far as he had ascertained them, but he leaves 
untouched the question of their affinities, and too often omits to indicate the original sources of his 
information. As I have already discussed most of the details contained in this treatise, I need only refer 
to two or three points which had escaped my notice. 
The diligent researches of Dr. Hamel appear to have added nothing to the historical evidence which 
is recorded above. The only work mentioned by him which I had failed to consult is the Journal of 
Paul van Soldt, for which I had sought in the libraries of Oxford and London without success. This, 
however, is merely another version of the account of Van der Hagen’s Voyage, and does not add to the 
information respecting it given at p. 17 supra. 
Dr. H. has judiciously remarked that from an obscurity of expression in the earliest account of 
Van Neck’s Voyage, the Dodo was described by translators and subsequent compilers as having the wings 
blackish and the tail grey. But we know from the coloured paintings that the whole bird was greyish, and the 
wings and tail yellowish. (See Plates I., III.) This error was corrected by Matelief (p. 17 supra), who 
stated the plumage to be grey, and by Verhuffen (or rather his officer and journalist Verkens), in whose 
narrative (p. 18 swpra) it is added that the wing feathers were yellow. 
Dr. Hamel has shewn the probability that the island, or bank, of Nazareth (see p. 21 supra) has no 
more existence than the Didus nazarenus to which it gave a name. I must therefore apologize to geo- 
graphers for having introduced this vgia into the chart of the Indo-African Ocean at p. 6, which was 
copied from Mr. Arrowsmith’s map of the world, published in 1842. 
The Géans of Leguat, which I have referred to Flamingos (p. 60 sapra), are by Dr. Hamel conjectured to 
be Struthious birds, which, like the Solitaire, have become extinct since the days of Leguat. On re-perusing 
Leguat’s text, however, it does not appear to me that the discrepancies between his Géaus and the Flamingo 
are so great as to justify this conclusion. 
After quoting Leguat’s account of the Solitaire, Dr. Hamel tells us the following anecdote. The 
French astronomer Pingré visited Rodriguez in 1761, to observe the famous transit of Venus, which was 
the occasion of many similar expeditions. ‘To commemorate this circumstance Le Monnier proposed to 
place the Solitaire among the constellations, but being a better astronomer than ornithologist, he inad- 
vertently gave this honour, not to the Didine bird of Rodriguez, but to the Solitary Thrush of the 
Philippines (Monticola eremita), figured by Brisson, vol. 1. pl. 28. f. 1, instead of copying Leguat’s figure 
as he might have done. (See Mémoires de l’Académie, 1776, p. 562, pl. 17.) It is worth the consi- 
