I also participated in the error of those celebrated men who_Essay on the Theory of the Earth

just mentioned, until the moment when I was enabled to examine some

mummies of the ibis by myself. This pleasure was procured for me,

for the first time, by the late M. Fourcroy, to whom M. Grobert,

Colonel of Artillery, on his return from Egypt, had given two of

these mummies, both taken from the pits of Saccara. On carefully

exposing them, we perceived that the bones of the embalmed bird

were much smaller than those of the _Tantalus ibis_ of naturalists;

that they did not much exceed those of the curlew in size, that its

beak resembled that of the latter, being only a little shorter in

proportion to its thickness, and not at all that of the tantalus;

and, lastly, that its plumage was white with the quills marked with

black, as the ancients have described it.

We are therefore convinced, that the bird which the ancient Egyptians

embalmed, was by no means the Tantalus ibis of naturalists, that it

was smaller, and that it was to be sought for in the curlew genus. We

found, after some inquiries, that the mummies of the ibis which had

been opened before by different naturalists, were similar to ours.

Buffon says expressly that he examined several of them; that the

birds which they contained had the beak and size of curlews; and yet

he has blindly followed Perrault in taking the African tantalus for

the ibis. One of those mummies opened by Buffon still exists in the

museum; it is similar to those which we have examined.

Dr Shaw, in the supplement to his Travels[350], describes and figures

with care the bones of a similar mummy. The beak, he says, was six

English inches in length, similar to that of the curlew, &c. In a

word, its description agrees entirely with ours.

Caylus, in his Collection of Antiquities, vol. vi. pl. xl. fig. 1.,

gives a representation of the mummy of an ibis, the height of which,

with its bandages, is only one foot seven inches four lines, although

he says expressly that the bird was placed upon its feet with the

head straight out, and that it had no part inflected in its embalment.

Hasselquist, who took a small white and black heron for the ibis,

gives, as his principal reason, that the size of this bird, which is

that of a crow, corresponds very well with that of the mummies of the

ibis[351]. How, then, could Linnæus have given the name of ibis to a

bird as large as a stork? How, especially, could he have considered

this bird to be the same as the Ardea ibis of Hasselquist, which,

besides its smallness, had the beak straight? And how has this latter

error of synonymy been preserved to this very day in the _Systema

Naturæ_?

A short time after this examination, which was made in the presence

of M. Fourcroy, M. Olivier had the politeness to shew us the bones

which he had taken from two mummies of the ibis, and to open along

with us two others. These bones were found similar to those of

Colonel Grobert’s mummies; one of the four only was smaller, but it

was easy to judge by the epiphyses that it had belonged to a young

individual.

The only figure of the beak of an embalmed ibis, which does not

entirely agree with the objects which we have had under our eyes,

is that of Edwards (pl. cv.); it is a ninth part larger, and yet we

do not doubt its accuracy, for M. Olivier shewed us also a beak an

eighth or a ninth longer than the others, or in the proportion of

180 to 165, which had been equally taken from a mummy. This beak

only shews that there were among the ibises individuals larger than

others; but it proves nothing in favour of the tantalus, for it has

not at all the form of the beak of that animal. Its beak is perfectly

similar to that of the curlews; and besides, the beak of the tantalus

is a third longer than that of our largest embalmed ibises, and

two-fifths longer than that of the smallest.

We have ascertained further, that similar variations with regard to

the size of the beak exist in our European curlews, according to the

age and sex. They are still more strongly marked in the green curlew

of Italy, and in our godwits; and this variation appears to be a

property common to most of the species of the family of scolopaceous

birds.

Lastly, our naturalists returned from the expedition to Egypt with

a rich harvest of objects, as well ancient as recent. My learned

friend M. Geoffroy St Hilaire, in particular, had occupied himself

with the greatest care in collecting mummies of all descriptions, and

had brought with him a great number of those of the ibis, both from

Saccara and Thebes.

The former were in the same state as those which M. Grobert had

brought, that is to say, their bones had undergone a sort of half

burning, and were without consistence; they broke on the slightest

touch, and it was very difficult to obtain any entire, and still more

so to detach them for the purpose of making a skeleton.

The bones of those brought from Thebes were much better preserved,

either on account of the greater heat of the climate, or from the

more efficacious means employed for their preparation; and M.

Geoffroy having sacrificed some of them to me, M. Rousseau, my

assistant, succeeded, by dint of patience and address, and by the

employment of ingenious and delicate methods of procedure, in making

up an entire skeleton, by stripping all the bones, and connecting

them with a very fine wire. This skeleton is deposited in the

anatomical galleries of the museum, of which it forms one of the

most beautiful ornaments, and we have represented it in Pl. iv.

It is likely that this mummy must have been that of a bird kept in a

state of domesticity in the temples, for its left humerus has been

broken and joined again. It is probable that a wild bird, whose wing

had been broken, would have perished before it had healed, from its

being unable to pursue its prey, or to escape from its enemies.

This skeleton puts it in our power to determine, without any

uncertainty, the characters and proportions of the bird. We see

clearly that it was in all points a true curlew, a little larger than

the common curlew of Europe, but having the beak thicker and shorter.

The following is a comparative table of the dimensions of the two

birds, taken, for the ibis, from the skeleton of the mummy of Thebes,

and for the curlew, from a skeleton which previously existed in our

anatomical galleries. We have added those of parts of the Saccara

ibises, which we succeeded in obtaining entire.

+-----------------------+-------------+------------+----------------+

| Parts. |an Ibis from |the Curlew. +-------+--------+

+-----------------------+-------------+------------+-------+--------+

|Head and beak together,| 0.210 | 0.215 | ... | ... |

|Head alone, | 0.047 | 0.040 | ... | ... |

|The 14 vertebræ of | 0.192 | 0.150 | ... | ... |

|Back, | 0.080 | 0.056 | ... | ... |

|Sacrum, | 0.087 | 0.070 | ... | ... |

|Coccyx, | 0.037 | 0.035 | ... | ... |

|Femur, | 0.078 | 0.060 | ... | ... |

|Tibia, | 0.150 | 0.112 | ... | 0.095 |

|Tarsus, | 0.102 | 0.090 | ... | ... |

|Middle-toe, | 0.097 | 0.070 | ... | ... |

|Sternum, | 0.092 | 0.099 | ... | ... |

|Clavicle, | 0.055 | 0.041 | ... | 0.04 |

|Humerus, | 0.133 | 0.106 | 0.124 | ... |

|Fore-arm, | 0.153 | 0.117 | 0.144 | 0.114 |

|Hand, | 0.125 | 0.103 | ... | ... |

+-----------------------+-------------+------------+----------------+

It appears by this table, that the animal of Thebes was larger than

our curlew; that one of the Saccara ibises was intermediate in size

between that of Thebes and our common curlew, and that the other was

smaller than this latter bird. It is also seen that the different

parts of the body of the ibis do not observe the same proportions

between each other, as those of the curlew. The beak of the former,

for example, is in particular shorter, although all the other parts

are longer, &c.

However, these differences of proportions do not exceed what might

be expected in species of the same genus: the forms and characters

which may be considered as generic, are absolutely the same.

We must therefore search for the true ibis, not among those

tantaluses of large size and sharp beak, but among the curlews; and,

let it be observed, that, by the name _curlew_, we intend to signify,

not the artificial genus formed by Latham and Gmelin, of all the

wading birds which have the beak curved downwards, but a natural

genus, to which we shall give the name of _Numenius_, and which will

comprehend all the waders with beaks curved downwards, soft and

rounded, whether their head be bare or clothed with feathers. It is

the genus _courlis_, such as Buffon imagined it[352].

A glance over the collection of birds belonging to the royal cabinet,

has enabled us to distinguish a species, which is neither named nor

described in the works of systematic writers, excepting perhaps by

Dr Latham; and which, when carefully examined, will be found to

correspond with all that the ancients, the monuments and mummies,

indicate as characteristic of the ibis.

We here present a figure of it, Plate V. It is a bird somewhat larger

than the curlew; its beak is arcuate like that of the curlew, but

a little shorter, and sensibly thicker in proportion, somewhat

compressed at its base, and marked on each side with a groove,

which, proceeding from the nostril, is continued to the extremity;

while, in the curlew, there is a similar groove, which disappears

before arriving at the middle of the beak; the colour of the beak is

more or less black; the head, and the two upper thirds of the neck,

are entirely destitute of feathers, and the skin of these parts is

black. The plumage of the body, wings, and tail, is white, with the

exception of the ends of the large quills of the wing, which are

black; the four last secondary quills have the barbs singularly long,

attenuated, and hanging down over the ends of the wings, when the

latter are folded; their colour is a beautiful black, with violet

reflections. The feet are black, the legs are thicker, and the toes

much longer in proportion than those of the curlew; the membranes

between the bases of the toes are also more extended; the leg is

entirely covered with small polygonal, or what is called reticulated

scales, and the base of the toes itself has only similar scales;

while, in the curlew, two-thirds of the leg, and the whole length of

the toes, are scutulate, that is to say, furnished with transverse

scales. There is a reddish tint under the wing, toward the top of the

thigh, and on the anterior large wing coverts; but this tint appears

to be an individual character, or the result of an accident, for

it does not occur in other individuals that are in other respects

entirely similar.

This first individual came from the collection of the Stadtholder,

and its native country was unknown. The late M. Desmoulins, assistant

naturalist to the Museum, who had seen two others, asserted that

they came from Senegal; one of them must even have been brought by

M. Geoffroy de Villeneuve: but we shall see, as we proceed, that

Bruce[353] found this species in Abyssinia, where it was named

_Abou-Hannes_ (Father John); and that M. Savigny saw it in abundance

in Lower Egypt, where it was called _Abou-Mengel_ (Father of the

Sickle). It is probable that the moderns will give no credit to the

assertion of the ancients, that the ibis never left Egypt without

perishing[354]. This assertion would, besides, be as contrary to the

Tantalus Ibis as to our common Curlew; for the individuals which we

have in Europe came from Senegal. It was from thence that M. Geoffroy

de Villeneuve had brought the individual in the Museum of Natural

History. It is even much rarer in Egypt than our curlew; for, since

Perrault, nobody mentions having seen it there, or having received

it from that country. An individual without the reddish tint, but in

other respects perfectly similar to the first, was brought home by M.

de Labillardiere, in his voyage to Australasia made along with M.

d’Entrecasteux.

We afterwards learned, that, when young, these birds have the head

and neck furnished with feathers in the part which, as they advance

in age, is to become bare; and that the scapulars are less elongated,

and of a paler and duller black. It is in this state that one was

brought to us from Australasia by the late Peron, which, in other

respects, differs from ours, and from that of M. Labillardiere,

only in having some black markings on the alula and first large

coverts, and in which the head and upper part of the neck are covered

with blackish feathers. It was also a youngish individual which M.

Savigny brought from Egypt, and which is figured in his memoir upon

the Ibis, Plate I.; and in the great work on Egypt, under the head

Birds, Pl. VII. The feathers of the head and back part of the neck

are rather grey than black; those of the fore part of the neck are

white. Lastly, Bruce’s figure (Atlas, Plate XXXV.) is also taken from

a young individual observed in Abyssinia, and almost similar to that

of M. Savigny.

We have received from Pondicherry, by M. Leschenault, an individual

similar to that of Peron, but in which, the head only, and a small

part of the back of the neck, are furnished with blackish feathers;

all the rest is covered with white feathers. But it is not the less

certain, that all these birds have the head and the neck bare when

they are full grown.

The late M. Macé sent from Bengal to the Museum several individuals

of a species very nearly allied to this, which has the beak a little

longer, and less arched, of which the first quill only has a little

black on the two edges of its point, and of which the secondary

quills are also somewhat attenuated, and slightly tinged with reddish.

It appears, according to M. Savigny, p. 25, that M. Levaillant

observed another still, which has the secondary quills similarly

elongated, but of which the neck always retains its feathers, and

whose face is of a red colour.

The same M. Macé also sent us a tantalus, very much resembling that

which has been regarded by naturalists as the ibis, but of which the

small wing-coverts, and a broad band at the lower part of the breast,

are black, and speckled with white. The last secondary quills are

elongated, and tinged with rose-colour. It is known that, in the

Tantalus ibis of naturalists, the small wing-coverts are speckled

with purplish red, and that the whole under part of the body is white.

We give here a table of the parts of some of these birds, which could

be accurately measured in stuffed individuals. By comparing them

with those of the skeletons of embalmed ibises, one may judge if

it were possible to believe for a single moment that these mummies

belonged to the tantalus.

+-----------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------------+

| |Length of the beak, from its commissure to |

| |the tip, |

| | |Length of the naked part of the leg, |

| | | | |toe, |

+-----------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------------+

| Naturalists. | 0.210 | 0.130 | 0.190 | 0.105 |

| Tantalus. | 0.265 | 0.150 | 0.250 | 0.115 |

| Ibis of the Ancients.| 0.125 | 0.041 | 0.085 | 0.080 |

| by M. Savigny. | 0.154 | 0.056 | 0.097 | 0.092 |

|Macé’s Numenius. | 0.148 | 0.055 | 0.095 | 0.083 |

| Numenius. | 0.165 | 0.040 | 0.084 | 0.086 |

|Peron’s Numenius. | 0.131 | 0.034 | 0.080 | 0.078 |

|Leschenault’s Numenius.| 0.132 | 0.044 | 0.093 | 0.086 |

+-----------------------+-------+-------+-------+---------------------+

Let us now examine the books of the ancients and their monuments;

let us compare what they have said of the ibis, or the figures of it

which they have traced, with the bird which we have been describing;

and we shall see all our difficulties vanishing, and all the

testimonies according with what is best of all for the purpose, the

body itself of the bird preserved in the mummy.

“The most common ibises,” says Herodotus, (Euterpe, No. 76.) “have

the head and the fore-part of the neck bare, the plumage white,

excepting on the head, the nape, the ends of the wings and of the

rump, which are black.[355] Their beak and feet are similar to those

of the other ibises.”

How does it happen that the travellers of our times do not make so

good descriptions of the birds which they observe as that which

Herodotus has made of the ibis? How could this description have been

applied to a bird which has only the face bare, and which has that

part of a red colour, to a bird which has the rump white, and not

covered over at least as ours by the black feathers of the wings?

And yet this latter character was essential to the ibis. Plutarch (De

Iside et Osiride) says, that the manner in which the white was cut

by the black in the plumage of this bird, presented the form of a

lunar crescent. It is, in fact, by the union of the black of the last

quills, with that of the two ends of the wings, that there is formed,

in the white, a large semicircular notch, which gives to the white

the figure of a crescent.

It is more difficult to explain what he has intended to say, in

averring that the feet of the ibis form an equilateral triangle with

its beak. But we can understand the assertion of Ælian, that when

it draws in its head and neck among its feathers, it represents, in

some measure, the figure of a heart.[356] It was on account of this,

according to Horus Apollo (c. 35.), the emblem of the human heart.

From what Herodotus says of the nakedness of the throat, and of the

feathers which covered the upper part of the neck, he appears to have

had under his eyes a middle aged individual; but it is not the less

certain, that the Egyptians also knew very well the individuals with

the neck entirely bare. We see such represented from sculptures in

bronze, in Caylus’s Collection of Egyptian Antiquities (vol. i. pl.

x. no. 4., and vol. v. pl. xi. no. 1.) This last figure is even so

like our bird represented in pl. v., that it might be said that it

was taken from it.

The paintings of Herculaneum no longer leave any doubt on the

subject. Plates 138 and 140 of David’s edition, and vol. ii. p. 315,

pl. 59, and p. 321, pl. 60 of the original edition, which represent

Egyptian ceremonies, shew several ibises walking in the court of

the temples. The characteristic blackness of the head and neck are

in particular recognised, and it is easily seen from the proportion

which their figure bears to the persons in the painting, that it must

have been a bird of half a metre at the most, and not of a metre, or

thereabouts, like the Tantalus ibis.

The mosaic of Palestine, also presents in its middle part several

ibises perched upon buildings. They differ in nothing from those of

the paintings of Herculaneum. A Sardonyx of Dr Mead’s Collection,

copied by Shaw, App. pl. v., and representing an ibis, seems to be

a miniature of the bird which we have described. A medal of Adrian,

in large bronze, represented in the Farnesian Museum, vol. vi.

pl. xxviii. fig. 16, and another of the same emperor, in silver,

represented in vol. iii. pl. vi. fig. 9, afford figures of the ibis,

which, notwithstanding their smallness, are pretty like our bird.

With regard to the figures of the ibis, sculptured upon the plinth

of the statue of the Nile, at Belvedere, and upon the copy of it at

the garden of the Tuileries, they are not sufficiently finished to

serve as proofs; but among the hieroglyphics of which the Institute

of Egypt has caused impressions to be made upon the spot, there are

several which distinctly represent our bird. In plate iii. fig.

1, we give one of these impressions which M. Geoffroy has had the

politeness to communicate to us.

We insist particularly on this latter figure, because it is the most

authentic of all, having been made at the time, and on the spot where

the ibis was worshipped, and being cotemporary with its mummies;

while those which we have cited above, having been made in Italy, and

by artists who did not profess the Egyptian worship, might have been

less faithful.

We owe to Bruce the justice of saying, that he recognised the bird

which he describes under the name of _Abou-Hannes_, as the true

ibis. He says expressly, that this bird appeared to him to resemble

that which the mummy pitchers contained; and further, that this

Abou-Hannes, or _Father John_, is very common on the banks of the

Nile, while he never saw there the bird represented by Buffon, under

the name of the White Ibis of Egypt.

M. Savigny, one of the naturalists of the expedition to Egypt,

equally asserts his not having seen the _Tantalus_ in that country,

but he obtained a great number of our _Numenius_ near the Lake

Menzale, in Lower Egypt, and carried their skins with him.

The Abou-Hannes has been placed by Latham, in his _Index

Ornithologicus_, under the name of _Tantalus Æthiopicus_; but he does

not speak of Bruce’s conjecture respecting its identity with the

ibis. The travellers before and after Bruce appear to have all been

in error. Belon thought that the white ibis was the stork, in which

he evidently contradicted all testimony on that head. No person has

adopted his opinion in this matter, excepting the apothecaries, who

have taken the stork for an emblem, because they have confounded it

with the ibis, to which the invention of clysters is attributed[357].

Prosper Alpinus, who relates that this invention is due to the

ibis, gives no description of this bird in his Medicine of the

Egyptians[358]. In his Natural History of Egypt, he speaks of it only

after Herodotus, to whose account he only adds, without doubt from a

passage of Strabo, which I shall mention farther on, that that bird

resembles the stork in size and figure. He mentions his having been

informed that white and black ones occurred in abundance on the edges

of the Nile; but it is evident from his very expressions, that he did

not believe it had been seen there[359].

Shaw says of the ibis,[360] that it is at the present day excessively

rare, and that he has never seen it. His _Emseesy_, or ox-bird, which

Gmelin very improperly refers to the Tantalus Ibis, is of the size

of the curlew, with the body white, and the beak and feet red. It

frequents the meadows, where it follows the cattle; its flesh is not

well tasted, and corrupts quickly. It is easy to see that this is not

the Tantalus, and still less the Ibis of the ancients.

Hasselquist was not acquainted with the white Ibis nor with the black

one, his _Ardea Ibis_ is a small heron, which has the beak straight.

Linnæus had acted very properly in placing it among the herons, in

his tenth edition; but he erred, as I have said, in transporting it

afterwards as a synonym to the genus _Tantalus_.

Demaillet[361] conjectures that the ibis might be the bird peculiar

to Egypt, and which was named Pharaoh’s Fowl (_Chapon de Pharaon_),

and at Aleppo _Saphan-bacha_. It devours serpents. There are of them

white, and white and black; and it follows, for more than a hundred

leagues, the caravans which go from Cairo to Mecca, for the purpose

of feeding upon the carcases of animals which are killed during the

journey, while at any other time there is not one seen along this

route. But the author does not consider this conjecture as certain;

he even says, that we must give up understanding the ancients, when

they have spoken so as not to be understood. He ends with concluding,

that the ancients have perhaps indiscriminately comprehended under

the name of Ibis, all birds which rendered to Egypt the service of

clearing it of the dangerous reptiles which this climate produces

in abundance, such as the vulture, the falcon, the stork, the

sparrowhawk, &c.

He had reason not to regard his Pharaoh’s fowl as the ibis; for,

although its description is very imperfect, and although Buffon

fancied he recognised the ibis in it, it is easy to judge, as well

as by what Pokocke says of it, that this bird must be a carnivorous

one; and, in fact, we see from Bruce’s figure (Vol. v. p. 191. of

the French edition), that Pharaoh’s fowl is nothing else than the

_rachama_ or the small white vulture with black wings (_Vultur

perenopterus_, Linn.)--a bird very different from what we have proved

above to be the ibis.

Pokocke says that it appears, from the descriptions which are given

of the ibis, and from the figures which he has seen of it in the

temples of Upper Egypt, that it was a species of Crane. I have seen,

he adds, a number of these birds in the islands of the Nile; they

were for the most part greyish[362]. These few words suffice to prove

that he did not know the ibis better than the others.

I also participated in the error of those celebrated men whom I have