POSTSCRIPT. 121 
in a few points, more directly to the Pigeons than the Plovers do, yet these points, taken strictly, are such 
as the Pigeons have in common, not, indeed, with the Charadrii, but wholly with the Porphyrio, as well as 
with other groups of Waders. Moreover the Dodo, as already shown, differs from the Pigeons in the form 
of several of the cranial bones,—differences, nearly all of which exist also in the Charadrii, and occur as 
points of connection with different Wading birds. 
“6, The remarkable form of the frontal region of the Dodo’s skull indicates a combination of the 
frontal structure in Chauna, Grus pavonina, Chionis, and Scolopax rusticola, since, in regard to outline, it 
resembles Chawna ; in the arching of its lower part, Chionis; in its great amount of arching generally, it 
is ike Grus pavonina ; in the very broad superior extremities of the lachrymal bone, trending towards the 
forehead, it agrees with Scolopax rusticola. 
“e, The form of the crown and occiput of the Dodo reminds us of Porphyrio, Grus pavonina, the 
Galline, &c., but not of the Pigeons. 
“d. The elevated upper mandible of the Dodo, in which it differs from the Charadrii and Pigeons, 
refers us to Ciconia, Tantalus, Ibis. 
“e. The broad maxillary continuation of the nasal bone in the Dodo, points to Ciconta and Porphyrio. 
“fF. The palatines of the Dodo, which do not slope outwards at the inner margin of their anterior 
extremity, are formed as in the Gruine, Scolopacine, and Charadriine, but not as in the Pigeons. 
“g. The bones of the feet and toes in the Dodo agree best with those of Hamatopus, among the 
Wading Birds. 
“fh. The naked forehead, cheeks, and gular region refer to Zuntalus, Grus leucogeranus, and so to 
Ciconia, Mycteria, and many Galline, much more than to the Vultures, and not at all to the Pigeons. 
“7. The beak of the Dodo, in its general form, may be as correctly regarded to be a slightly modified 
colossal beak of a Charadrius, as of a Pigeon. On the other hand, it seems inadmissible to connect this bird 
with the Vulture, as it differs greatly therefrom in its short hooked extremity, only slightly emarginate at 
the lower edge. 
“fk, The nostrils, placed far forwards, and resembling perpendicular fissures, show a resemblance with 
those of Chionis, in part also with those of many Pigeons, but hardly with those of many Vultures (nicht 
aber blos mit denen mancher Geier). 
“The Dodo may also be placed before the Dove-like Charadrii, as an anomalous form and a peculiar 
group of Waders, so that its affinity to Cranes, Storks, Woodcocks, Ibises, and Water-hens may be indi- 
cated; as I have done in a special table, which exhibits the single families of the Pigeons, Gadling, 
Ostriches, and Waders, arranged according to their relations of affinity. In the same table, also, the con- 
nections of the Dodo to the Ostriches and Pigeons are shown by dotted lines.” 
In a note appended to this paper, Professor Brandt thus relates the progress of his researches :— 
“Tn order to establish more exactly my past, present, and future, wholly independent, opinion, with 
reference to Messrs. Strickland’s and Melville’s researches on the Dodo, I beg to make the following obser- 
vations. Already in May, 1846, when Dr. Hamel had laid before the Academy a cast of the Copenhagen 
Dodo’s head (Bull. Phys. Math. vol. v. p. 314), I invited him to join me in comparing the cast with the 
skulls of other birds in the Museum of the Academy. It soon resulted that the Dodo was no Vulture, 
Ostrich, or Galline, but rather a Pigeon-like bird. I soon after briefly communicated this result to M. Lich- 
tenstein, and requested him to make it known to the Berlin Academy or the Natural History Society. It 
greatly allied in the structure of their beaks ; a relation which was unobserved by Strickland and Melville, inasmuch 
as they pronounced the Dodo to be actually a Pigeon.” 
