6 
(tab. 6), and intituled ‘ Head of the Albitros,’ as it doubtless was. The leg above men- 
tioned is that now preserved in the British Museum, where it was deposited with the 
other specimens described by Grew, when the Eoyal Society gave their ‘ rarities’ to that 
national establishment. Grew was a well qualified observer, and much of this descrip- 
tion implies observation and comparison ; indeed, though he does not refer to it, there 
is no reason for supposing that Grew was not familiar with Tradescant’s specimen. 
“ Charleton also (Onomasticon, 1688) speaks of the Dodo Lusitanorum {Cygnus cucul- 
latus, Willughby and Bay), and asserts that the Museum of the Royal Society of London 
contained a leg of the Dodo. This was evidently the leg above alluded to. 
“We now proceed to trace the specimen which was in the Musseum Tradescantianum. 
There were, it seems, three Tradescants, grandfather, father, and son. The two former 
are said to have been gardeners to Queen Elizabeth, and the latter to Charles I. There 
are two portraits to the ‘Musseum,’ one of ‘Joannes Tradescantus pater,’ and the other 
of ‘Joannes Tradescantus filius,’ by Hollar. These two appear to have been the col- 
lectors: for John Tradescant, the son, writes in his address, ‘to the ingenious reader’ 
that ‘ he was resolved to take a catalogue of those varieties and curiosities which my 
father had scedulously collected and my selfe with continued diligence have augmented, 
and hitherto preserved together.’ This John Tradescant, the son, must have been the 
Tradescant with whom Elias Ashmole boarded for a summer when Ashmole agreed to 
purchase the collection, which was said to have been conveyed to Ashmole by deed of 
gift from Tradescant and his wife. Tradescant died soon after, and Ashmole, in 1662, 
filed a bill in Chancery for a delivery of the curiosities. The cause is stated to have 
come to a hearing in 1664; and, in 1674, Mrs. Tradescant delivered up the collection 
pursuant to a decree in Chancery, and afterwards (April, 1678, some say) was found 
drowned in her own pond. Ashmole added to the collection, and presented it to the 
University of Oxford, where it became the foundation of the Ashmolean Museum. 
That the entire ‘Dodar’ went to Oxford with the rest of Tradescant’s curiosities there 
can be no doubt. Hyde (Eeligionis Veterum Persarum, &c., Historia, 1700) makes 
particular mention of it as existing in the Museum at Oxford. There, according to 
Mr. Duncan, it was destroyed in 1755 by order of the visitors, and he thus gives the 
evidence of its destruction : — 
“ ‘ In the Ashmolean Catalogue, made by Ed. Llhwyd, Mussei Procustos, 1684 (Plott 
being the keeper), the entry of the bird is, “ No. 29. Gallus gallinaceus peregrinus, 
Clusii,” &c. In a Catalogue made subsequently to 1755, it is stated “ That the numbers 
from 5 to 46, being decayed, were ordered to be removed at a meeting of the majority 
of the visitors, Jan. 8, 1755.” Among these of course was included the Dodo, its 
number being 29. This is further shown by a new Catalogue, completed in 1756, in 
which the order of the visitors is recorded as follows : “ Ilia quihus nullus in margine 
assignatur numerus a Musaeo subducta sunt cimelia, annuentibus Vice-Cancellario 
aliisque Curatoribus ad ea lustranda convocatis, die Januarii 8vo, a.d. 1755.” The 
