106 ZOOLOGICAL LlTEllATUllE. 
de cet oiseau recemnxent decouverts h Tile Maurice. Ex- 
trait in Cpmpt. Rend. Ixii. 23 Avril^ 1866, pp. 924-928, 
1017 ; Rev. et. Mag. de Zool. 1866, pp. 209-215. 
The specimens forming the subject of this memqir were sent 
to the museum at Reunion by Mr. Clark {vide supra). The 
authors believe that thp difference between Didus and Pezophaps 
was more than generic, and consequently much greater than is 
usually supposed. Though perceptibly different from that of 
the Yulturidce or other AccipitreSy the Dodo in its sternum ap- 
proached these birds more than any others, Ciconia excepted ; 
and they regard it as constituting a distinct family allied to the 
Yultures, as well as to certain Gallince and Grallce. This assign- 
ment also is not contradicted by the characters of the pelvis, 
•vyhich, though it offers incontestable analogies with that bone 
in the Qolumhidaey Otididaej and Ciconiid<Sj yet has an evident 
reseniblance to that of the Vulturidae. 
Milne -Edwards, Alphonse. Remarques sur les ossements de 
Dronte {Didus ineptus) nouvellement recueillis a Tile Mau- 
rice. Extrait in Compt. Rend. Ixii. (23 Avril, 1866) pp. 
929-932, 1092; Ann. Sci. Nat. 1866, v. pp. 355-380, pis. 13 
-17*; Rev. et. Mag. de Zool. 1866, pp. 215-219; (trans- 
lated in Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 3rd ser. 1866, xvii. pp. 473- 
475). , 
After some introductory observations, the author describes in 
much detail some specimens of Dodos^ bones, bought in London, 
the fruits of Mr. Clarkes recent discovery^ as already mentioned 
by us. In the author^s opinion, the pelvis of this bird is one of the 
most remarkable parts of it : while in certain respects it resembles 
that of the Columbidoi, it is distinguished therefrom by important 
characteristics, which are not of the kind evinced by the terres- 
trial members of that family. The sternum also he considers very 
unpigeon-like, and concludes by saying that Didus must not be 
regarded as a walking pigeon, that it cannot enter the, ColumbidcBj 
but must be arranged alongside of them in a group of the same 
value. In some Addenda to the paper, as read before the 
Academy of Sciences, he combats the opinions expressed by 
Messrs. Gervais and Cocquerel as to the Dodoes afhnitiea, and 
declares that it only presents few resemblances to the VulturidcBy 
and these without anatomical or physiological importance. The 
specimens at M. A. Milne-Edwards^s disposal are far inferior to 
those at Prof. Owen^s, both in number and condition ; but the 
plates representing them are executed in a manner> as superior. 
Didtis ineplus'. a notice of the boneg recently discovered by IVIr. G. Clark^ 
and of the discussion in the Erench Academy consequent thereon. R. Meyer^ 
Zoolog. Garten, 1866, pp. 352-354. 
Didus ineptus [P] : a supposed original drawing, representing this bird as 
' * Also published separately. Paris : 1866. 4to, pp. 28, pis, 6. 
