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 Bidus 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 1 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 gi-oimds 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 Natui-al 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 Natui-al History in the Government School of Mines 3, when 

 the question was before the " House" foui- 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 



' Strickland and Melville, 'The Dodo and its Kindred,' 4to, 1848, p. 34. 



^ Ojj. cit. p. 34. 



» See letter in ' The Times' of May 21st, 1862, advocating the limitation of the National Museum of Natural 

 History to " six rooms," signed Thomas H. Httslet, F.R.S. 



•* Reply to the above 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 naturaUsts 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 famUy. The idea is devoid of proof ; and those 

 who are loudest in advocating the restriction of exhibited specimens to ' types ' have contributed least to Hghteu 

 the difficulties of the practical curator in making the selection." (.Ed. 1862, p. 24; see also pp. 26-34.) 

 VOL. VI. — FART II. *^ 



