the opinion of authors feems to vary; fome reprefenting 

 it as tough and unpleafant, while others confider it as 

 by no means ill adapted for the table ; efpecially the 

 breaft, which, according to Bontius, is of fuch a fize 

 that three or four of th*m are enough for a very large 

 company. It is an inhabitant of Africa and the Eaft- 

 Indian illands. 



After all, can it be poffiMe that an Albatrofs, (Dio- 

 medea exulans Lin.) not fully grown, and inaccurately 

 reprefented by a draughtfman, may have given rife to 

 the fuppofed exiftence of the Dodo? If this be granted, 

 we muft furely admit an uncommon degree of carelefl- 

 nefs in the painter, who could thus neglect to exprefs 

 the webs on the feet of the Albatrofs, as well as to 

 reprefent the wings extremely large and long, inftead 

 of fmall and hhort ; together with other particulars in 

 which the two birds can by no means be made to agree. 

 Yet, on the other hand, it is undeniable that the gene- 

 ral appearance of the beak of an Albatrofs is not greatly 

 diffimilar to that of the fuppofed Dodo. And if we 

 contemplate a young or half-grown fpecimen of the 

 great Albatrofs, before it has arrived at its proper 

 colour, and while there is a mixture of black and white 

 on the wings and other parts, and to this fuperadd the 

 heavy and crouching pofture in which it fometimes ap- 

 pears, it will perhaps feem not abfolutely impoffible 

 that an erroneous fketch from fuch a bird may have 

 been the bafis on which the exiftence of the Dodo 

 has hitherto flood. Charleton in his Onomafiicon 

 Zo'icon, affirms that the bill and head of the Dodo 

 were then in the Mufeum of the Royal Society. This 

 reputed bill of a Dodo may however have been 



nothing 



