[Illustration: PLATE. I.
R Savary pinx. M&N Hanhart. imp. J Erxleben lith
DIDUS.]
MEMOIR
ON
THE DODO
(_Didus ineptus_, +Linn.+).
BY
RICHARD OWEN, F.R.S.,
WITH AN
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
BY THE LATE
WILLIAM JOHN BRODERIP, F.R.S.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.
1866.
TO
THE HON. ADOLPHUS F. O. LIDDELL, Q.C.
+My dear Neighbour+,
If our accomplished and lamented friend, Mr. +Broderip+, had been
spared to see the evidences of the extinct bird of the Mauritius
described in the following pages, he would probably have taken a more
direct share in the present work, and he certainly would have felt
equal pleasure with myself in inscribing it to you, in whose society we
so often enjoyed pleasant and instructive discourse in the sylvan walks
and tranquil shades of Sheen.
Believe me,
Very sincerely yours,
RICHARD OWEN.
Sheen Lodge, Richmond Park,
August 1866.
CONTENTS.
Page
§ 1. Historical Introduction 1
§ 2. Description of the Skeleton 21
Vertebræ 22
Ribs 25
Pelvis 27
Sternum 29
Scapular Arch 31
Bones of the Wing 32
Bones of the Leg 33
Skull 35
§ 3. Comparison of the Skeleton 41
§ 4. Conclusion 49
ON
THE DODO
(_Didus ineptus_, +Linn.+).
§ 1. _Historical Introduction._
The Dodo has long been one of the “Curiosities of Natural History,”
through the singularity of its recorded shape, and the paucity of the
material evidences of the bird. The head and foot in the Ashmolean
Museum at Oxford, and the foot in the British Museum, were all the
parts of the bird known to the author of the admirable article “+Dodo+”
at the date of its publication in the ‘Penny Cyclopædia’[1].
The history of the bird to that date is so conscientiously and
exhaustively worked out by my lamented friend, that, instead of
paraphrasing or amplifying it, I here give it in Mr. Broderip’s own
words.
“_Written and Pictorial Evidence._—In the voyage to the East Indies, in
1598, by Jacob Van Neck and Wybrand van Warwijk (small 4to, Amsterdam,
1648), there is a description of the _Walgh-vogels_ in the Island of
Cerne, now called Mauritius, as being as large as our swans, with large
heads, and a kind of hood thereon; no wings, but, in place of them,
three or four black little pens (pennekens), and their tails consisting
of four or five curled plumelets (pluymkens) of a greyish colour. The
breast is spoken of as very good, but it is stated that the voyagers
preferred some Turtle-doves that they found there. The bird appears
with a tortoise near it (fig. 1), in a small engraving, one of six
which form the prefixed plate.
“In the frontispiece to De Bry (Quinta Pars Indiæ Orientalis, &c.,
M.DCI.), surmounting the architectural design of the titlepage, will be
found, we believe, the earliest engravings of the Dodo. A pair of these
birds stand on the cornice on each side, and the following cut (fig. 2)
is taken from the figure on the left hand.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.
Tortoise and Walgh-vogel, of the Mauritius (Van Neck and Wybrand,
1598). From plate 2 of Van Neck’s Voyage.
Fig. 2.
Dodo
(De Bry, 1601).]
“In De Bry’s ‘Descriptio Insulæ Do Cerne a nobis Mauritius dictæ’
is the following account:—‘Cærulean Parrots also are there in great
numbers, as well as other birds; besides which there is another larger
kind, greater than our swans, with vast heads, and one half covered
with a skin, as it were, hooded. These birds are without wings, in
the place of which are three or four rather black feathers (quarum
loco tres quatuorve pennæ nigriores prodeunt). A few curved delicate
ash-coloured feathers constitute the tail. These birds we called
_Walck-Vögel_, because the longer they were cooked the more unfit
for food they became (quod quo longius seu diutius elixarentur, plus
lentescerent et esui ineptiores fierent). Their bellies and breasts
were nevertheless of a pleasant flavour (saporis jucundi) and easy of
mastication. Another cause for the appellation we gave them was the
preferable abundance of Turtle-doves which were of a far sweeter and
more grateful flavour.’ It will be observed that the bill in De Bry’s
figure is comparatively small.
“Clusius, in his ‘Exotica’ (1605), gives a figure, here copied” (note
¹, p. 4), “which, he says, he takes from a rough sketch in a journal of
a Dutch voyager who had seen the bird in a voyage to the Moluccas in
the year 1598.
“The following is Willughby’s translation of Clusius, and the section
is thus headed: ‘The Dodo, called by Clusius _Gallus gallinaceus
peregrinus_, by Nieremberg _Cygnus cucullatus_, by Bontius _Dronte_.’
‘This exotic bird, found by the Hollanders in the island called Cygnæa
or Cerne (that is the Swan Island) by the Portuguese, Mauritius Island
by the Low Dutch, of thirty miles’ compass, famous especially for
black ebony, did equal or exceed a swan in bigness, but was of a far
different shape; for its head was great, covered as it were with a
certain membrane resembling a hood: beside, its bill was not flat
and broad, but thick and long; of a yellowish colour next the head,
the point being black. The upper chap was hooked; in the nether had
a bluish spot in the middle between the yellow and black part. They
reported that it is covered with thin and short feathers, and wants
wings, instead whereof it hath only four or five long black feathers;
that the hinder part of the body is very fat and fleshy, wherein for
the tail were four or five small curled feathers, twirled up together,
of an ash colour. Its legs are thick rather than long, whose upper
part, as far as the knee, is covered with black feathers; the lower
part, together with the feet, of a yellowish colour; its feet divided
into four toes, three (and those the longer) standing forward, the
fourth and shortest backward: all furnished with black claws. After
I had composed and writ down the history of this bird with as much
diligence and faithfulness as I could, I happened to see in the house
of Peter Pauwius, primary professor of physic in the University of
Leyden, a leg thereof cut off at the knee, lately brought over out
of Mauritius his island. It was not very long, from the knee to the
bending of the foot being but little more than four inches, but of a
great thickness, so that it was almost four inches in compass, and
covered with thick-set scales, on the upper side broader, and of a
yellowish colour, on the under (or back side of the leg) lesser and
dusky. The upper side of the toes was also covered with broad scales,
the under side wholly callous. The toes were short for so thick a leg:
for the length of the greatest or middlemost toe to the nail did not
much exceed two inches, that of the other toe next to it scarce came up
to two inches: the back toe fell something short of an inch and a half;
but the claws of all were thick, hard, black, less than an inch long;
but that of the back toe longer than the rest, exceeding an inch. The
mariners, in their dialect, gave this bird the name _Walgh-Vögel_, that
is, a nauseous or yellowish[2] bird; partly because after long boiling
its flesh became not tender, but continued hard and of a difficult
concoction, excepting the breast and gizzard, which they found to be of
no bad relish, partly because they could easily get many Turtle-doves,
which were much more delicate and pleasant to the palate. Wherefore it
was no wonder that in comparison of those they despised this, and said
they could be well content without it. Moreover, they said that they
found certain stones in its gizzard, ‘_and no wonder, for all other
birds, as well as these, swallow stones to assist them in grinding
their meat_.’ Thus far Clusius.
“In the voyage of Jacob Heemskerk and Wolfert Harmanz to the East
Indies, in 1601, 1602, 1603 (small 4to, Amsterdam, 1648), folio 19,
the Dod-aarsen (Dodos) are enumerated among the birds of the Island of
‘Cerne, now Mauritius’; and in the ‘Journal of the East Indian Voyage
of Willem Ysbrantsz Bontekoe van Hoorn, comprising many wonderful
and perilous things that happened to him’—from 1618 to 1625 (small
4to, Utrecht, 1649)—under the head of the ‘Island of Mauritius or
Maskarinas,’ mention is made (page 6) of the Dod-eersen, which had
small wings, but could not fly, and were so fat that they scarcely
could go.
“Herbert, in his Travels (1634), gives a figure or rather figures of
a bird that he calls ‘Dodo,’ and the following account:—‘The Dodo
comes first to our description, here, and in Dygarrois (and no where
else, that ever I could see or heare of, is generated the Dodo). (A
Portuguize name it is, and has reference to her simplenes), a bird
which for shape and rarenesse might be called a Phœnix (wer’t in
Arabia); her body is round and extreame fat, her slow pace begets that
corpulencie; few of them weigh lesse than fifty pound: better to the
eye than the stomack: greasie appetites may perhaps commend them, but
to the indifferently curious nourishment, but prove offensive. Let’s
take her picture: her visage darts forth melancholy, as sensible of
nature’s injurie in framing so great and massie a body to be directed
by such small and complementall wings, as are unable to hoise her from
the ground, serving only to prove her a bird; which otherwise might
be doubted of: her head is variously drest, the one halfe hooded with
downy blackish feathers; the other perfectly naked; of a whitish hue,
as if a transparent lawne had covered it: her bill is very howked and
bends downwards, the thrill or breathing place is in the midst of it;
from which part to the end, the colour is a light greene mixt with a
pale yellow; her eyes be round and small, and bright as diamonds; her
cloathing is of finest downe, such as you see in goslins; her trayne
is (like a China beard) of three or foure short feathers; her legs
thick, and black, and strong; her tallons or pounces sharp; her stomack
fiery hot, so as stones and iron are easily digested in it; in that and
shape, not a little resembling the Africk oestriches: but so much, as
for their more certain difference I dare to give thee (with two others)
her representation.’ (4th ed. 1677[3].)
“Nieremberg’s description (1655) may be considered a copy of that of
Clusius, and indeed his whole work is a mere compilation. As we have
seen above, he names the bird _Cygnus cucullatus_.
“In Tradescant’s catalogue (‘Musæum Tradescantianum; or, a
Collection of Rarities preserved at South Lambeth, near London, by
John Tradescant,’ London, 1656, 12mo), we find among the ‘Whole
Birds’—‘Dodar, from the island Mauritius; it is not able to flie being
so big.’ That this was a Dodo there can be no doubt; for we have the
testimony of an eye-witness, whose ornithological competency cannot be
doubted, in the affirmative. Willughby at the end of his section on
‘The Dodo,’ and immediately beneath his translation of Bontius, has
the following words: ‘We have seen this bird dried, or its skin stuft
in Tradescant’s cabinet.’ We shall, hereafter, trace this specimen to
Oxford.
“Jonston (1657) repeats the figure of Clusius, and refers to his
description and that of Herbert.
“Bontius, edited by Piso (1658), writes as follows: ‘_De Dronte_ aliis
_Dod-aers_.’ After stating that among the islands of the East Indies
is that which is called Cerne by some, but Mauritius ‘a nostratibus,’
especially celebrated for its ebony, and that in the said island a bird
‘miræ conformationis’ called _Dronte_ abounds, he proceeds to tell
us—we take Willughby’s translation—that it is ‘for bigness of mean
size between an ostrich and a turkey, from which it partly differs
in shape, and partly agrees with them, especially with the African
ostriches, if you consider the rump, quills, and feathers: so that it
was like a pigmy among them, if you regard the shortness of its legs.
It hath a great, ill-favoured head, covered with a kind of membrane
resembling a hood; great black eyes; a bending, prominent, fat neck; an
extraordinary long, strong, bluish-white bill, only the ends of each
mandible are of a different colour, that of the upper black, that of
the nether yellowish, both sharp-pointed and crooked. It gapes huge
wide as being naturally very voracious. Its body is fat, round, covered
with soft grey feathers, after the manner of an ostriches: in each
side, instead of hard wing-feathers or quills, it is furnished with
small, soft-feathered wings, of a yellowish ash-colour; and behind, the
rump, instead of a tail, is adorned with five small curled feathers
of the same colour. It hath yellow legs, thick, but very short; four
toes in each foot, solid, long, as it were scaly, armed with strong,
black claws. It is a slow-paced and stupid bird, and which easily
becomes a prey to the fowlers. The flesh, especially of the breast, is
fat, esculent, and so copious, that three or four Dodos will sometimes
suffice to fill an hundred seamens’ bellies. If they be old, or not
well boiled, they are of difficult concoction, and are salted and
stored up for provision of victual. There are found in their stomachs
stones of an ash colour, of divers figures and magnitudes; yet not bred
there, as the common people and seamen fancy, but swallowed by the
bird; as though by this mark also nature would manifest that these fowl
are of the ostrich kind, in that they swallow any hard things, though
they do not digest them.’
“It appears from Adam Olearius (Die Gottorfische Kunst Kammer, 1666),
that there was a head to be seen in the Gottorf Museum; but the figure
(tab. 13. f. 5) is very like that of Clusius. It is mentioned as the
head of the _Walch-Vogel_, and Clusius is referred to. In the plate the
head is shaded, and has a more finished appearance: the rest of the
bird is in outline[4].
“Grew (‘Musæum Regalis Societatis; or a catalogue and description of
the natural and artificial rarities belonging to the Royal Society,’
London, folio, 1681), at p. 68, thus describes the bird which is the
subject of our inquiry. ‘The leg of a Dodo; called _Cygnus cucullatus_
by Nierembergius; by Clusius, _Gallus gallinaceus peregrinus_; by
Bontius called _Dronte_, who saith that by some it is called (in
Dutch) _Dod-aers_, largely described in Mr. Willughby’s Ornithol. out
of Clusius and others. He is more especially distinguished from other
birds by the membranous hood on his head, the greatness and strength
of his bill, the littleness of his wings, his bunchy tail, and the
shortness of his legs. Abating his head and legs, he seems to be much
like an ostrich, to which also he comes near as to the bigness of his
body. He breeds in Mauris’s Island. The leg here preserved is covered
with a reddish-yellow scale. Not much above four inches long, yet
above five in thickness, or round about the joints, wherein, though
it be inferior to that of an Ostrich or Cassowary, yet, joined with
its shortness, may render it of almost equal strength.’ At p. 73,
there is the following notice:—‘The head of the Man of War, called
also Albitrosse; supposed by some to be the head of a Dodo, but it
seems doubtful. That there is a bird called the Man of War is commonly
known to our seamen; and several of them who have seen the head here
preserved, do affirm it to be the head of that bird, which they
describe to be a very great one, the wings whereof are eight feet over.
And Ligon (Hist. of Barbad. p. 61), speaking of him, saith, that he
will commonly fly out to sea to see what ships are coming to land, and
so return. Whereas the Dodo is hardly a volatile bird, having little
or no wings, except such as those of the Cassowary and the Ostrich.
Besides, although the upper beak of this bill doth much resemble that
of the Dodo, yet the nether is of a quite different shape; so that
this either is not the head of a Dodo, or else we have nowhere a
true figure of it.’ Grew then gives a very lengthened description of
the skull which is figured by him (tab. 6), and intituled ‘Head of
the Albitros,’ as it doubtless was. The leg above mentioned is that
now preserved in the British Museum, where it was deposited with the
other specimens described by Grew, when the Royal Society gave their
‘rarities’ to that national establishment. Grew was a well qualified
observer, and much of this description 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 cucullatus_, Willughby and Ray), 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 Musæum
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 ‘Musæum,’ one of ‘Joannes Tradescantus pater,’ and the other of
‘Joannes Tradescantus filius,’ by Hollar. These two appear to have been
the collectors: 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 (Religionis 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, Musæi 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: “Illa quibus nullus in margine assignatur numerus a
Musæo subducta sunt cimelia, annuentibus Vice-Cancellario aliisque
Curatoribus ad ea lustranda convocatis, die Januarii 8vo, +a.d.+ 1755.”
The Dodo is one of those which are here without the number.’ (Duncan,
“On the Dodo,” Zool. Journ. vol. iii. p. 559.)
“We now come to the celebrated painting in the British Museum, a copy
of which, by the kind assistance of the officers of the zoological
department, who have given us every assistance in prosecuting this
inquiry, and who had it taken down for the purpose, we present to our
readers[5].
“It has been stated that the painting came into the possession of Sir
Hans Sloane, president of the Royal Society, and that it was bought
at his sale by Edwards, who, after publishing a plate from it in his
Gleanings, presented it to the Royal Society, whence it passed, as well
as the foot, into the British Museum. But Mr. Gray informs us that the
foot only came with the museum of the Royal Society described by Grew;
and that the picture was an especial gift from Edwards. Edwards’s copy
seems to have been made in 1760, and he himself says—‘The original
picture was drawn in Holland from the living bird brought from St.
Maurice’s Island, in the East Indies, in the early times of the
discovery of the Indies by the way of the Cape of Good Hope. It was
the property of the late Sir Hans Sloane to the time of his death; and
afterwards becoming my property I deposited it in the British Museum as
a great curiosity. The above history of the picture I had from Sir Hans
Sloane and the late Dr. Mortimer, secretary to the Royal Society.’
“M. Morel (Ecrivain Principal des Hôpitaux au Port-Louis de l’Isle de
France) writes as follows in his paper ‘Sur les oiseaux monstrueux
nommés Dronte, Dodo, Cygne Capuchonné, Solitaire, et Oiseau de Nazare,
et sur la petite Isle de Sable à 50 lieues environ de Madagascar.’
‘These birds, so well described in the second volume of the ‘History
of Birds,’ by M. le Comte de Buffon, and of which M. de Borame has
also spoken in his ‘Dictionary of Natural History,’ under the names
of Dronte, Dodo, Hooded Swan (Cygne Capuchonné), Solitary or Wild
Turkey (Dinde sauvage) of Madagascar, have never been seen in the
isles of France, Bourbon, Rodriguez, or even the Seychelles lately
discovered, during more than sixty years since when these places have
been inhabited and visited by French colonists. The oldest inhabitants
assure every one that these monstrous birds have been always unknown
to them.’ After some remarks that the Portuguese and Dutch who first
overran these islands may have seen some very large birds, such as
Emeus or Cassowaries, &c., and described them each after his own manner
of observing, M. Morel thus proceeds: ‘However this may be, it is
certain that for nearly an age (depuis près un siècle) no one has here
seen an animal of this species. But it is very probable that before
the islands were inhabited, people might have been able to find some
species of very large birds, heavy and incapable of flight, and that
the first mariners who sojourned there soon destroyed them from the
facility with which they were caught. This was what made the Dutch
sailors call the bird ‘Oiseau de dégoût’ (Walck-Voegel), because they
were surfeited with the flesh of it.... But among all the species of
birds which are found on this isle of sand and on all the other islets
and rocks which are in the neighbourhood of the Isle of France, modern
navigators have never found anything approaching to the birds above
named, and which may be referred to the number of species which may
have existed, but which have been destroyed by the too great facility
with which they are taken, and which are no longer found excepting upon
islands or coasts entirely uninhabited. At Madagascar, where there are
many species of birds unknown in these islands, none have been met with
resembling the description above alluded to.’ (Observations sur la
Physique pour l’an 1778, tom. xii. p. 154, notes.)
“Mr. Duncan thus concludes his paper above alluded to:—‘Having applied,
through the medium of a friend, to C. Telfair, Esq., of Port Louis,
in the Mauritius, a naturalist of great research, for any information
he could furnish or procure relating to the former existence of the
Dodo in that island, I obtained only the following partly negative
statement:—
“‘That there is a very general impression among the inhabitants that
the Dodo did exist at Rodriguez, as well as in the Mauritius itself;
but that the oldest inhabitants have never seen it, nor has the bird
or any part of it been preserved in any museum or collection formed in
those islands, although some distinguished amateurs in natural history
have passed their lives on them, and formed extensive collections.
And with regard to the supposed existence of the Dodo in Madagascar,
although Mr. Telfair had not received, at the time of his writing to
Europe, a reply to a letter on the subject which he had addressed to a
gentleman resident on that island, yet he stated that he had not any
great expectations from that quarter; as the Dodo was not mentioned
in any of his voluminous manuscripts respecting that island, which
contained the travels of persons who had traversed Madagascar in all
directions, many of them having no other object in view than that of
extending the bounds of natural history.’
“We close this part of the case with the evidence of one evidently well
qualified to judge, and whose veracity there is no reason to doubt. If
this evidence be, as we believe it to be, unimpeachable, it is clear
not only that the Dodo existed, but that it was publicly exhibited in
London. The lacunæ in the print represent the spaces occasioned by a
hole burnt in the manuscript.
“In the ‘Sloane MSS.’ (No. 1839, 5, p. 108, Brit. Mus.) is the
following interesting account by L’Estrange in his observations on
Sir Thomas Browne’s ‘Vulgar Errors.’ It is worthy of note that the
paragraph immediately follows one on the ‘Estridge’ (Ostrich).
“‘About 1638, as I walked London streets I _saw the_ picture of a
strange fowl hong out upon a cloth canvas and myselfe with one or two
more Gen. in company went in to see it. It was kept in a chamber, and
was a great fowle somewhat bigger than the largest Turkey Cock and so
legged and footed but stouter and thicker and of a more erect shape,
coloured before like the breast of a yong Cock Fesan (pheasant), and on
the back of dunn or deare coulour. The keeper called it a Dodo and in
the ende of a chimney in the chamber there lay an heap of large pebble
stones whereof hee gave it many in our sight, some as big as nutmegs,
and the keeper told us shee eats them (conducing to digestion) and
though I remember not how farre the keeper was questioned therein yet I
am confident that afterwards she cast them all agayne[6].’
“_Evidence arising from Remains._—The only existing recent remains
attributed to the Dodo are, a leg (fig. 4) in the British Museum,
and a head (fig. 3) (a cast of which is in the British Museum), and
a leg in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, the relics most probably of
Tradescant’s bird. Whether the leg formerly in the museum of Pauw be
that at present in the British Museum may be, perhaps, doubtful, though
we think with Mr. Gray that they are probably identical; but that the
specimen in the British Museum did not belong to Tradescant’s specimen
is clear, for it existed in the collection belonging to the Royal
Society when Tradescant’s ‘Dodar’ was complete.
“In the ‘Annales des Sciences’ (tome xxi. p. 103, Sept 1830) will
be found an account of an assemblage of fossil bones, then recently
discovered, under a bed of lava, in the Isle of France, and sent to the
Paris Museum. They almost all belonged to a large living species of
land-tortoise, called _Testudo indica_, but amongst them were the head,
sternum, and humerus of the Dodo. ‘M. Cuvier,’ adds Mr. Lyell in his
‘Principles of Geology,’ ‘showed me these valuable remains at Paris,
and assured me that they left no doubt in his mind that the huge bird
was one of the gallinaceous tribe[7].’”
[Illustration: Fig. 3.
Head of Dodo (specimen in the Oxford Museum), one-third nat. size.]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.
Foot of Dodo (specimen in the British Museum), one-third nat. size.]
The bones in question were obtained from a cavern in the Island of
Rodriguez (Desjardins, Analyse des Travaux de la Soc. d’Hist. Nat. de
l’Ile Maurice, 2ᵈᵉ année), and belong to the Solitaire (_Pezophaps_),
a large extinct brevipennate bird, allied to the Dodo. The other
evidences from remains, cited by Broderip, also relate to the Solitaire.
Such was the history of the Dodo in 1837.
In the following year I visited Holland, chiefly with a view to
ascertain whether there might possibly be any remnant of the bird
preserved in the Natural History Museums of that country, and to
collect for my friend whatever other evidence, material, written or
pictorial, might have escaped his assiduous researches.
My visits to the museums at Leyden, Amsterdam, Utrecht, and the Hague,
during which I received every requisite aid from the accomplished
Professors and Curators, were productive of only negative results.
The little other information I was able to obtain was communicated to
Mr. Broderip, who incorporated it in the following “Supplement to his
History.”
“_Additional evidence relative to the Dodo. By_ +W. J. Broderip+,
_Esq., F.R.S._
“The interest which attaches to any communication relative to an
extinct, and, at one time, a doubted species, must be my apology
for offering the following addition to the evidences of the
existence and habits of the Dodo.
“My old and valued friend Professor Owen presented me, on his
return from Holland some time since, with a short thick volume,
bearing on its titlepage (not without black letter) the following
promise:—
“‘C. Plinii Secundi Des wijdt-vermaerden Natuurkondigers vijf
Boecken.
_Handelen van de Nature._
I. Van de Menschen.
II. Van de viervoetige en Kruypende Dieren.
III. Van de Vogelen.
IV. Van de Kleyne Beestjes of Ongedierten.
V. Van de Visschen, Oesters, Kreeften, &c.
“‘Hier zijn by-gevoeght de Schriften van verscheyden andere oude
Authueren de Natuur der Dieren aengaende. En nu in desen laetsen
Druck wel het vierde part vermeerdert, uyt verscheyden nieuwe
Schrijvers en eygen oudervindinge: en met veel Kopere Platen
verziert t’Amsterdam, By +Abraham Wolfgangh+, 1662.’
“The frontispiece presents the artist’s notion of the Garden of
Eden, with a very Dutch Adam and Eve, the latter with the apple
in her hand, while the serpent twined round the tree looks sly
and satisfied. Our first parents are surrounded by beasts, and in
the foreground is represented a piece of water with waterfowl and
‘ill-shaped fishes.’
“The superscription is ‘C. Plinius S. Van de Menschen, Beesten,
Vogelen en Visschen.’
“Mr. Strickland, in his elaborate work on ‘The Dodo and its
Kindred[8],’ in which he has done me the honour to adopt the
arrangement and the information collected in my article ‘Dodo,’ in
the ‘Penny Cyclopædia[9],’ gives some addenda in his postscript
to Part I. of his and Dr. Melville’s book. ‘The first of these,’
writes Mr. Strickland, ‘is a rare edition of Bontekoe’s Voyage,
kindly communicated to me by Dr. Bandinel, the Bodleian Librarian,
entitled “Journael van de acht-jarige avontuerlijcke Reyse van
Willem Ysbrantsz Bontekoe van Hoorn, gedaen nae Oost-Indien,”
published in quarto at Amsterdam, by Gillis Joosten Zaagman. There
is no date; but from a narrative introduced at the end, it must be
subsequent (probably by a year or two) to 1646. The narrative is
nearly a verbatim version of the other Dutch editions of Bontekoe;
and the only variation of text which concerns us, is in the
statement that the underside of the Dodo dragged along the ground,
which is here qualified thus:—“sleepte haer de neers _by na_ (i.
e. _almost_) langs de Aerde.” But what gives a peculiar interest
to this volume is, that it contains (alone of all the editions of
Bontekoe which I have seen) a figure of the Dodo, which I here
present.’ Then follows the cut.
“‘This highly ludicrous representation,’ continues Mr. Strickland,
‘is more like a fighting cock than a Dodo; and the black letter
of the Dutch text omits to tell us whether this design was due to
the pencil of Bontekoe or his publisher Zaagman, or whether it was
copied from some contemporary painting now forgotten. But there can
be no doubt that this figure refers to the true Dodo of Mauritius,
and not to the “Solitaire” of Bourbon, with which Bontekoe
confounded it.
“‘We may regret that the rudeness of the original woodcut leaves
us in the dark as to the nature of the object on which the Dodo
appears about to feed. This figure would pass equally well for a
testaceous mollusk, or for an arboreal fruit; so that the problem
of the Dodo’s food seems as far from a solution as ever.’
“In Wolfgangh’s publication, p. 480, is the following description:—
“‘Op’t Eylandt Mauritius in Oost-Indien, als mede op sommige
andere plaetsen gelijck mede in West-Indien, vindt men voegels soo
groot als Swanen, die men Dodaersen of Dronten noemt, sy hebben
groote hoofden, en daer op een velleken in manier van een Kapken,
sy hebben geen vleugels, dan in plaetsvan dien, 3 of 4 swarte
pennekens, en daer haer staert behoorde te staen, daer Zijn 4 of 5
gekrulde Pluymkens, van graeuwachtige verwe. Sy hebben een dicke
ronde Naers, daer uyt het schijnt, dat haer de naem van Dodaers
toe gekomen is; in de maegh hebben sy gemeenlijck een Steen van
een vuyst groot, dese is bruyn, graeuw van verwe, en vol gaetkens,
en hollingheydt, doch soo hart als grauwe Bentemeer-steen. Het
Boots-volck van _Jacob van Neck_, noemden se Walgh-vogels, om dat
se die niet recht gaer of murrruw konden koken: of om datse soo
veel Tortel-duyven konden bekomen, die leckerder smaeckten, datse
van dese Dod-aersen de walgh kregen. Aen 3 of 4 van dese Vogels had
al’t Scheeps volck van een Schip, voor een maeltijdt genoegh t’
eeten: Dese Dod-aersen hebbense oock ingesouten en op de reys mede
genomen.’
“This description may be thus rendered:—
“‘In the Island of Mauritius in the East Indies, as also in sundry
other places, likewise in the West Indies, men find birds as big as
swans, which they call _Dod-aerses_ or _Drontes_. They have large
heads, upon the top of which is a skin (a little skin-membrane) in
the shape of a cap (little cap). They have no wings, but in the
place of them there are three or four black feathers; and there
where the tail should be, there are instead four or five curling
plumes of a greyish colour. They have a thick round rump, and
from this it appears they got the name of Dod-aerses. In their
stomachs they have commonly a stone as big as a fist; this stone
is of a brown-grey colour, and full of little holes and hollows,
but as hard as the grey Bentemer stone. The boat’s crew of _Jacob
van Neck_ called them Walgh-vogels (surfeit birds), because they
could not cook them till they were done, or make them tender; or
because they were able to get so many turtle-doves which had a much
more pleasant flavour, so that they took a disgust to these birds.
Likewise it is said that three or four of these birds are enough
to afford a whole ship’s company one full meal. Indeed they salted
down some of them, and carried them with them on the voyage.’
“At the top of the page in which this passage commences is
printed ‘_Van de Dodaersen_.’ And immediately below it and above
the description is a copper-plate of the bird, superscribed
‘_Dod-aers_,’ in engraved italics.
“The engraving of the bird is identical in position and accessories
with the woodcut given by Mr. Strickland; but the sharpness of
the work and the nature of the plate make the whole much clearer.
The object at which the Dodo is looking, as if about to feed,
is manifestly a testaceous mollusk with a turbinated shell, and
between that and the raised foot of the bird is a half-buried spiny
_Echinus_.
“The locality on which the Dodo is walking has the appearance of a
strand which the tide has left dry.
“Wolfgangh’s account confirms the opinion which I hazarded in the
article ‘Dodo’ in the ‘Penny Cyclopædia.’
“‘As to the stories of the disgusting quality of the flesh of the
bird found and eaten by the Dutch, they will weigh but little
in the scale when we take the expression to be, what it really
was, indicative of a comparative preference for the turtle-doves
there found, after feeding on Dodos _usque ad nauseam_. “Always
partridges” has become proverbial, and we find from Lawson how
a repetition of the most delicious food palls. “We cooked our
supper,” says that traveller, “but having neither bread nor salt,
our fat turkeys began to be loathsome to us; although we were never
wanting of a good appetite, yet a continuance of one diet made us
weary;” and again, “By the way our guide killed more turkeys, and
two polecats, which he eat, esteeming them before fat turkeys.”’
“It does not follow that because the Dodo is represented as looking
at the _frutti di mari_, he is about to devour them. But if it
be granted he is, the admission would not militate against the
opinion of those who would place the Dodo between the Struthious
and Gallinaceous birds. It is well known that the turkeys in
America come down to the shore and feed upon the ‘fiddler’ crabs;
and there would be nothing extraordinary in a quisquilious feeder,
such as the Dodo probably was, varying its fruit and vegetable
diet occasionally by resorting to such animal substances as it
might find on the strand. Common poultry eagerly pick up insects
and slugs in the fields, and, in the neighbourhood of tidal rivers
and estuaries, may be seen availing themselves of the smaller
_mollusca_ and _crustacea_ left by the retreating tide.
“In my article ‘Struthionidæ[10]’ under the section ‘Didus,’ is
inserted the following extract from a letter written to me by
Professor Owen:—
“‘Whilst at the Hague in the summer of 1848, I was much struck
with the minuteness and accuracy with which the exotic species of
animals had been painted by Savery and Breughel, in such subjects
as _Paradise_, _Orpheus charming the beasts_, &c., in which scope
was allowed for grouping together a great variety of animals.
Understanding that the celebrated menagerie of Prince Maurice had
afforded the living models to those artists, I sat down one day
before Savery’s _Orpheus and the beasts_, to make a list of the
species, which the picture evinced that the artist had had the
opportunity to study alive. Judge of my surprise and pleasure in
detecting in a dark corner of the picture (which is badly hung
between two windows), the Dodo beautifully finished, showing for
example, though but three inches long, the auricular circle of
feathers, the scutation of the tarsi, and the loose structure of
the caudal plumes. In the number and proportions of the toes and in
general form, it accords with Edwards’s oil-painting in the British
Museum; and I conclude that the miniature must have been copied
from the study of a living bird, which, it is most probable, formed
part of the Mauritian menagerie.’
“I little thought, when, with his permission, I published this
graphic product of my kind friend’s pen, what was in store for
me. Not long afterwards, a friend informed me that he had seen a
picture at a dealer’s painted by one of the Saverys, and that he
was pretty sure there was a Dodo in one corner of it. I sent for
the picture, and there, sure enough, in the right-hand corner, and
consequently to the left of the spectator, was the bird, in all the
beauty of its ugliness. The Dodo stands on one foot with its back
to the spectator, and turning round its head, which is represented
with the huge bill picking the other uplifted foot. Like all the
rest of the birds in this picture, which bears the name of Roland
Savery, the Dodo is highly finished. The picture is now in my
possession[11].”
The figure 2 in Plate I. is a faithful copy of the bird as represented
in it.
Whilst on a visit to Sion House I was unexpectedly gratified by
finding, in a small oil-painting in the long gallery, an unequivocal
and original representation of the Dodo, in an attitude different
from that of any of the figures of the living bird by Roland Savery,
and evidently by another master. I lost no time in communicating
this additional evidence of the extinct bird to Mr. Broderip, and
in obtaining the permission of my noble host to make such use of the
painting as might best subserve the interests of Natural History. Mr.
Broderip communicated to the Zoological Society the following:—
“_Notice of an Original Painting, including a Figure of the Dodo,
in the Collection of
His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, at Sion House._
[Illustration]
“Professor Owen, at whose disposal the Duke of Northumberland
placed the following additional pictorial evidence of the existence
of the Dodo in the seventeenth century, has requested me to draw
the attention of this Society to the highly interesting picture
which the Duke has been so good as to send for the inspection
of the Fellows. The size of the picture, which is in the finest
preservation, is thirty-two inches by nineteen. It is executed
in oil, and bears the following monogram and date. Mr. William
Russell, with his usual discernment, detected in this monogram the
signatures of Jean Goeimare and Jean David de Heem, and proved
the correctness of his judgment by a reference to Brulliot[12].
Jean Goeimare, who is not noticed by Descamps, Bryan, Sandrart,
or Houbraken, is described by Brulliot as a Flemish artist who
flourished at the commencement of the seventeenth century, and
painted landscapes with many animals, executed with great care,
but in rather a dry manner[13]. Of De Heem, the celebrated painter
of still life, it would be superfluous to say anything. We may
conclude, then, that in this joint production the landscape and
animals were painted by Goeimare, and the shells by De Heem.
[Illustration: Fig. 5.
Dodo (from the painting by Goeimare, 1627, in Sion House).]
“In this picture, which seems to have been intended as a record
of rarities, the foreground represents a sea-shore from which
the tide has retired, leaving empty shells of the following
genera:—_Nautilus_, _Pteroceras_, _Strombus_, _Triton_, _Pyrula_,
_Cassis_, _Cypræa_, _Conus_, _Mitra_, _Turbo_, _Nerita_, _Mytilus_,
_Ostrea_, &c. Behind, on elevated ground, are two Ostriches; and
below, to the right of the spectator, the Dodo is represented as
in the act of picking up something from the strand” (fig. 5). “The
head and body of the bird, covering an area as large as the palm
of a man’s hand, are seen; but the legs are hidden. The painter of
the Dodo, in _my_ picture” (Pl. I. fig. 2), “has given the only
complete foreshortened back view of the bird known to me. In the
Duke’s picture the head and body are presented to the spectator on
a larger scale; and I have nowhere seen the hood or ridge at the
base of the bill, from which the bird obtained the name of _Cygnus
cucullatus_, so clearly represented. Near the Dodo are a Smew and
other aquatic birds, and further off Hoopoes and Terns. In the
distance is the ocean, with a sea-monster awaiting the attack of
Perseus, who descends on a winged steed to the rescue of Andromeda
chained to a rock. Those who have had occasion to describe and
figure new species of Testacea, know how difficult it is to find
a draughtsman who can give a correct design of the shell to be
represented. Unless the artist, like Mr. G. B. Sowerby, jun., is
aware of the internal structure of the shell, and acquainted with
its organization, a lamentable failure is generally the result.
In the picture before us, with one exception—and even in that
the specimen may have been distorted—so accurate was the eye
of the painter, that if he had been aware of the organization
of each shell—knowledge which he probably had not—he could not
have represented the objects more correctly. The _Nautili_[14],
_Strombus gigas_, _Triton_, and _Pyrula_ are painted with great
breadth and power, and all are drawn and coloured with wonderful
truth; indeed a conchologist may name every species. One of the
_Nautili_ is partially uncoated, to show the nacre, and the other
dissected, to display the concamerations. None of the shells have
the epidermis, and all are of the natural size. The artificial
condition of these subjects, and especially of the _Nautili_,
is, it must be allowed, rather out of place in an assemblage of
testaceans left on the sands by the retired tide, unless we are
to suppose that the sea-nymphs had been amusing themselves by
polishing the specimens and displaying the internal structure of
one of them; but this very treatment shows that the designs were
accurately made from real objects then considered as rarities. With
the exception of the Dodo, none of the natural objects represented
are now rare. The shells, especially those whose _habitats_ are
the seas of the Antilles, are at present very common; but at the
date of the picture—the second year of the reign of our first
Charles—the natural productions of the West Indies were not well
known, and were, comparatively, very scarce. With the shells on the
shore is the cranium of a carnivorous quadruped, apparently of the
family _Canidæ_. The monster-cetacean in the distance has evidently
no chance with the avenger who is coming down upon him mounted on a
winged steed. But Pegasus, who, with other prodigies, sprang from
the blood that dropped from Medusa’s head, as the conqueror who had
cut it off with his harpe traversed the air with his gory trophy,
immediately winged its flight to Helicon, there to become the pet
of the Muses. The best version of this mythological story relates,
that when Perseus afterwards killed the sea-monster and delivered
Andromeda on the coast of Ethiopia, he effected his purpose by
raising himself in the air through the aid of the wings and talaria
given to him by Mercury, and not with the help of the winged horse
on which most of the painters mount him.
“Professor Owen informs me that Roland Savery’s picture containing
the Dodo, in the Berlin collection, bears the date of 1626; and
that the colour of the Dodo in the Duke of Northumberland’s picture
resembles that of the portrait of the bird, of life size, by the
same painter, now at Oxford. L’Estrange describes the hue of the
back of the living Dodo which he saw exhibited in London ‘about
1638,’ as of ‘dunn or deare colour.’”
The picture of the Dodo at Berlin by R. Savery, to which Mr. Broderip
refers, is copied in figure 1, Plate I. Another figure of the bird,
by the same artist, is introduced into a painting in the Imperial
Collection of the Belvedere at Vienna. Fig. 3, Plate I. of the present
work, is from the copy of this picture, transmitted by Dr. Tschudi to
Mr. Strickland, and given at p. 30 of the ‘Dodo and its Kindred.’ The
date of the picture is 1628.
We have thus evidence of figures of the bird being introduced into
paintings executed during the years 1626, 1627, and 1628. The
different attitudes and life-like actions of the Dodo, in these
representations, indicate that the artists had a living model before
them. Their original studies may, indeed, have been executed at some
period antecedent to the dates of the paintings into the subjects of
which this rare and curious bird is introduced; but the capital fact
remains, viz. that the figures given in Plate I. faithfully represent
the shape, colour, and attitudes of the now extinct brevipennate bird
of the Mauritius. Different conjectures have been propounded as to the
time, place, and other circumstances under which Roelandt Savery and
Jean Goeimare were enabled to execute their drawings or studies of the
living Dodo, and I had the satisfaction to find that Mr. Strickland
concurred in the conclusion at which I arrived after my researches in
Holland into the history and evidences of the bird.
“As Roland Savery was born in 1576, he was twenty-three years old when
Van Neck’s expedition returned to Holland, and as we are told by De Bry
that the Dutch brought home a Dodo on that occasion, it is possible
enough that Savery may have taken the portrait of this individual,
and that the design thus made may have been copied by himself and by
his nephew John in their later pictures. Or if we feel disposed to
doubt the correctness of De Bry’s statement, we may yet suppose, with
Professor Owen, that the menagerie of Prince Maurice supplied the
living prototype for Savery’s pencil. This opinion is corroborated by
the tradition recorded by Edwards, that the picture in the British
Museum was drawn in Holland from the living bird. It is far more
probable than the conjecture of Dr. Hamel (Bull. Ac. Petersb. vol. v.
p. 317), that Savery’s pictures were copied from the Dodo exhibited in
London, as this individual must in that case have lived in captivity at
least twelve years, from 1626 to 1638[15].”