130 ON THE EXTINCT BIRDS OF 



accompanies the Dodo in Van den Broecke's plate (supra, p. 19)." He goes 

 on to observe that it is probably identical with the species mentioned by 

 Leguat as Gelinottes. 



What Herbert's '' Hen " may be I know not ; but it clearly is not an 

 Aphanapteryx, which has a curved beak; while Van den Broecke's plate 

 represents the Aphanapteryx and Do Do side by side, as was natural. 



Doubtless what Mr. Wallace calls ''the old rostral distinction" or 

 affinity is not much to be depended upon now as a diagnostic sign ; yet the 

 owners of those two beaks could never belong to the same species. Again, 

 the length of the neck is quite different ; and though both are apparently 

 brevipennate birds, they have little other resemblance. The wings are 

 unlike. 



I am astonished at so good an ornithologist, as Strickland certainly 

 was, passing over these points of divergence. 



In 'The Ibis,' 1869, pp. 256-275, M. Alphonse Milne-Edwards has 

 treated the subject of these birds with his usual ability and discernment; and 

 he remarks (p. 274) thus upon "the 'Hen,' of which Sir Thomas Herbert 

 has left a very imperfect figure, wherein the bill is long, straight, and pointed, 

 instead of being curved like that of Aphanapteryx. There is no vestige of a 

 tail ; but it seems to have had extremely short wings. This is the bird to 

 which Professor Schlegel has assigned the name Didus herberti.'" 



Here I must complain of the 'Ben' being associated in the same genus 

 with Didus ineptus, to which it plainly bears no affinity; it is better to 

 refrain from placing in any position a bird of which we at present know 

 so little: "Didus'' is clearly wrong. Its bones may some day enable us to 

 understand it better— a thing to be desired. In the mean time let us hold 

 our hand. 



