and origin of the painting of the Dodo in the British Museum, I took a
copy of the outline of the bird and laid upon it outlines of the bones
of the Dodo subsequently to be described, as shown in Plate III., and
thus obtained proof that the painting truly represented the natural
size and shape of the _Didus ineptus_, and had no doubt been “drawn in
Holland from the living bird[16].” From the date of the first landing
of the Dutch on the Island of Mauritius, in 1598, to their colonization
of it in 1644, their ships frequently, perhaps annually, visited that
island, and, as recorded by most of the writers quoted by Broderip,
and testified by Van der Hagen, in 1607[17], their crews feasted on
Tortoises, Dodos, Doves, and other game, and also salted the Tortoises
and Dodos for consumption during the voyage to the spice-islands of
the Indian Archipelago. It is highly probable that more than one of
the strange birds of Prince Maurice’s Island would be brought alive
to Holland, and we know that a specimen was brought from that country
for exhibition in London in the year 1638. It is certain that through
the attacks of man, and those of the dogs, cats, and swine introduced
by the Dutch into the Mauritius, the slow and heavy flightless Dodos
were extirpated, probably before Leguat’s visit to the island in 1693.
The French colonists, who succeeded the Dutch in 1712, seem not to
have found any Dodos remaining in the island; their descendants and
successors have preserved no traditions of the living bird; and Baron
Grant, who resided in the Mauritius from 1740 to 1760, expressly states
that no such bird was to be found there at that time[18].
Mr. Broderip refers, in his History of the Dodo, to the notice by Adam
Olearius, in 1666, of the head of that bird in the museum of the Duke
of Gottorp.
This specimen was most unexpectedly discovered by Professor Reinhardt
in the Museum of Natural History at Copenhagen under the following
circumstances:—“In the summer of 1840 I happened to search through
a box wherein different natural-history objects were stored, which
had been presented by the ‘Kunstkammer’ to the Royal Natural History
Museum, and on this occasion I found a very large bird-cranium, which
attracted my attention partly through its size, partly through its
unusual and peculiar shape, and by a further examination and comparison
with the authenticated representations of the Dodo, I became persuaded
that it must have belonged to that remarkable bird.
“It is very well preserved, only wanting the left ‘os pterygoideum;’
and the ‘condylus occipitalis,’ together with the entire border of
the ‘foramen magnum’ are broken away; otherwise it is quite perfect,
so that an almost complete description of the osteology of the head
of this remarkable genus may be made out from it. Although I have
searched through Laurentz’s ‘Museum Regium’ and the MS. Catalogue of
the ‘Kunstkammer,’ I have nowhere been able to discover any notice of
such a cranium having ever been possessed by the Collection, and it
is therefore clear that it has preserved the present specimen quite
unwittingly, and it stands probably under one of the many numbers
given as referring to heads of unknown foreign birds. I have meanwhile
gradually come to the conclusion that this head is in all likelihood
the one called ‘Dodo’s head’ by Olearius in the year 1666, in his
description of the Gottorp Kunst-Museum, which, when that museum, at
least in part, was amalgamated with the Copenhagen Museum, found its
way there.” (Reinhardt, in ‘Kröyer’s Naturhist. Tidsskr.’ iv. pp. 71,
72 (1842)).
About ten years afterwards a portion of the bone of the upper beak of a
Dodo was discovered in the Imperial and Royal Museum of Natural History
at Prague[19].
Such, until the year 1865, was the sum of the remains of this large,
flightless, extinct bird which were known to have reached Europe.
The happy perception, by the Danish Professor J. Reinhardt, in
1843[20], of the resemblance of the beak of the Dodo to that of
the tropical Doves, generically separated by Cuvier under the name
_Vinago_, on account of their proportionately larger, more strongly
arched, and compressed beak than in other Pigeons, and the still closer
resemblance, in miniature, of the beak of the Samoan Dove to that
of the great Mauritian bird, which led Titian Peale to give to the
former the generic name _Didunculus_, directed the ornithologist and
ornithotomist to the family in which the most instructive comparisons
might be made; and the results of these, so far as relates to the head
and foot and the bones of those parts, published by the authors of the
above-cited work (p. 4), left little doubt of the “striking affinity
which exists between this extinct bird and the Pigeons”[21].
Whatever doubt, indeed, may have lingered in the minds of naturalists
as to this affinity will probably be finally set at rest by the results
of the comparison of the large proportion of the skeleton of the _Didus
ineptus_ which has at length been transmitted from the island of
Mauritius to London, under the following circumstances.
In 1863, I was favoured by Miss A. Burdett Coutts with an introduction
to the Bishop of Mauritius, then in this country, and I endeavoured
to interest his lordship in aiding or promoting the acquisition, by
the British Museum, of the zoological rarities of Madagascar, and
especially of any remains of the Dodo which might be discovered in the
island of Mauritius, to which his lordship was about to return.
How speedily and successfully the Bishop has fulfilled my latter desire
will be shown by the following letter, with which I was favoured in
November, 1865.
“St. James, Port Louis,
“October 7, 1865.
“+My dear Sir+,—when I had the pleasure of conversing with you for
a short time in London two years ago, I promised to acquaint you
with any facts or discoveries which might come to my knowledge,
likely to interest you in connexion with Madagascar. I have not
anything as yet to communicate definitely respecting that island in
the way of natural history, but I have strong reasons to believe
that a discovery has been made here recently which will gratify you
very much. Mr. George Clark, who has for many years devoted himself
to the work of teaching in this island with great success, is an
ardent student of natural history, and has explored many parts of
the island in search of information on the subject. From careful
observation he was led to conclude that no remains of the Dodo were
likely to be found in any of our watercourses, because of their
steep descent and the immense rush of water which sweeps down them
at times. But he had also frequently expressed his opinion that in
certain marshes, with high banks of sand between them and the sea,
such remains would probably be found. In one of these places he has
found several of the bones of the Dodo (as he believes), and is now
forwarding them home for your inspection[22].
“At his request, I write these lines to ask for your kind care of
his interests in securing any reward which may accrue to him. It
would be a great pleasure to me to find that his discovery was
really important, and likely to be useful to himself; for he
has pursued these and similar investigations with an amount of
intelligence, skill, and diligence, in his vacation-times (by no
means extensive), which deserves much credit and encouragement.
“The book which you kindly sent me on the Aye-Aye has been read
by many, and especially by medical men, with much interest. I
entrusted the other copy to Mr. John Douglas for the Society here.
“I remain, my dear Sir,
“Your very faithful Servant,
(Signed) “+Vincent N. Mauritius+.”
“_Professor Owen._”
This letter was accompanied with the following “Statement” by Mr.
George Clark, Master of the Government School at Mahébourg, Island of
Mauritius:—
“On the estate called ‘Plaisance,’ about three miles from
Mahébourg, in the island of Mauritius, there is a ravine of no
great depth or steepness, which, apparently, once conveyed to the
sea the drainings of a considerable extent of circumjacent land,
but which has been stopped to seaward, most likely for ages, by
an accumulation of sand extending all along the shore. The outlet
from this ravine having been thus impeded, a sort of bog has
been formed, called ‘La Mare aux Songes,’ in which is a deposit
of alluvium, varying in depth, on account of the inequalities of
the bottom, which is formed of large masses of basalt, from three
to ten or twelve feet. The proprietor of the estate a few weeks
ago conceived the idea of employing this alluvium as manure; and
shortly after, the men began digging in it; when they had got to
a depth of three or four feet they found numerous bones of large
tortoises, among which were a carapace and a plastron pretty nearly
entire, as also several crania.
“When I heard of this, it immediately struck me that the spot was
one of the most likely possible to contain bones of the Dodo, and I
gave directions to the men working there to look out for any bones
they might find. Nothing, however, was turned up but a fragment of
what I supposed to be the humerus of a large bird. This encouraged
me to look further; and my search was rewarded by the discovery of
several tibiæ, more or less perfect, two tarsi, one nearly perfect
pelvis, and fragments of three others.
“These were found imbedded in a black vegetable mould, the
lighter-coloured specimens being near the springs. My reasons
for believing these to be remains of the Dodo are:—the certainty
that that bird once existed in Mauritius; the similarity of these
bones to what the representations of the Dodo which I have seen
would lead one to expect, particularly the breadth of the pelvis,
the stoutness of the tibiæ and tarsi, and the shortness of the
latter; the favourable nature of the spot in which they were found
for the haunts of such birds when living—a sheltered hollow with
two springs in it; the non-existence, actual or traditional, in
Mauritius of any bird to which bones such as these could have
belonged; the indubitable antiquity of these bones, proved by the
deposit of alluvium which covered them.
“During nearly thirty years that I have inhabited this colony, I
have made frequent inquiries of old people as to the finding of
the bones of large birds, and have offered liberal rewards for
such; and I have consulted with the late Dr. Ayres as to the spots
most likely to contain them. We agreed that the floods which sweep
the hill-sides and the ravines in the rainy season would be most
likely to carry any remains into the sea; and this would doubtless
have been the case here, but for the stoppage occasioned by the
sand-down.
(Signed) “+George Clark.+ 1865.”
The above “Statement” was authenticated by the following testimony:—
“Having visited the place with Mr. Clark, I can vouch for the truth
of the facts herein mentioned.
(Signed) “+William Thomas Banks+,
“Civil Chaplain, Mauritius.”
“The Rev. W. T. Banks, Civil Chaplain at Mahébourg, in this
diocese, and Mr. George Clark, Master of the Government School at
Mahébourg, are well known to me, and deserving implicit credit for
their statements as to matters of fact.
(Signed) “+Vincent N. Mauritius.+ Oct. 6, 1865.”
§ 2. _Description of the Skeleton._ (Plate III.)
The bones of the Dodo (_Didus ineptus_, Linn.) discovered by Mr. Clark,
under the above circumstances, which have reached me up to the present
date (December 20th, 1865) are the following:—
Name. Number of bones or parts.
Cranium and lower jaw, in parts 14
Vertebræ and pelvis 30
Ribs 22
Sternum 2
Scapular arch, in parts 7
Humerus, ulna, radius 6
Femora 5
Tibiæ 6
Fibulæ 4
Metatarsals 4
———
Total number of parts of skeleton of the Dodo 100
===
The known characters of the skull and metatarsus of the _Didus ineptus_
served to identify those bones as belonging to that species: the
agreement in relative size, colour, condition, and locality left no
room for hesitation in referring the other bones in the above list to
the same species[23]. They belong, however, to four or five individuals
varying somewhat in size. With the bones of the Dodo were the end of
the lower jaw of a broad-billed Parrot, two bones (radius) of a small
Mammal, and part of the skull of a large Tortoise[24].
To the description of the Dodo’s bones I now proceed.
_Vertebræ._ (Plates III., IV., V., VIII., XI.)
The dorsal vertebræ are chiefly represented, in this series of bones,
by three which are anchylosed together by their bodies and neural
arches (Pl. V. figs. 1–5): the posterior articular surface of the body
of the last of these vertebræ (ib., fig. 4, _c_) is subquadrate, longer
in the vertical than the transverse direction, concave vertically,
convex transversely, almost fitting, but being rather too small for,
the anterior articular surface of the body of the first of the sacral
series (Pl. VII. fig. 1, _c_). The difference is such as to indicate
that only one dorsal vertebra may have intervened; and I conclude that
the last of the three coalesced vertebræ is the penultimate dorsal.
The anterior articular surface of the foremost of the three (Pl. IV.
fig. 1, _c_) is 11 lines in transverse, and 4 to 5 lines in vertical
diameter: it is concave transversely for the middle three-fifths,
and convex transversely at the two outer fifths of its extent: it is
more or less convex vertically throughout its extent. The bodies of
these vertebræ are compressed and wedged-shaped, slightly expanded
at their coalesced ends, produced below into subquadrate hypapophyses
in the first and second (Pl. V. fig. 1, _hy_); while this process is
restricted to the fore part (ib. _hy_ 3), or may be represented only
by a slight anterior production of the lower edge of the wedge, in the
third (ib. fig. 5, _hy_ 3).
The hypapophysis of the first of the three expands at its termination
(Pl. IV. fig. 1, _hy_), with the hinder angle bent back to coalesce
with the front one of the next hypapophysis, which is somewhat longer,
and bent forward with a similar terminal expansion: a full elliptical
space is intercepted by this terminal confluence of these hypapophyses
(Pl. V. figs. 1 & 5, _hy_). Each vertebra shows an elliptical articular
cavity (ib. figs. 1 & 5, _p_, _p_ 3) for the head of the rib, near to
the anterior articular surface; the long axis of this costal surface
is directed from above obliquely downward and forward. The surface of
the rib’s tubercle cuts obliquely the lower part of the free end of the
diapophysis (Pl. IV. fig. 1, _d_).
The neural arch circumscribes a canal the anterior outlet of which (ib.
fig. 1, _n_) is oval with the small end downward, 5 lines in vertical,
and 3½ in transverse diameter: the sides of the neural canal slightly
project inward above the lower third: the posterior outlet (Pl. V. fig.
4, _n_) is more regularly elliptical in form, and rather narrower in
proportion to its vertical diameter. The neurapophysis sends off from
the outer and fore part of its base a stout process, which expands and
divides into zygapophyses (Pl. IV. fig. 1, _z_) and diapophyses (ib.
_d_); the articular surface of the former is of a full oval shape,
flat, looking obliquely upward and inward; the diapophyses extend
outward and a little backward: the articular surface for the tubercle
of the rib is transversely elliptical and nearly flat. The hinder
part of the neurapophysis expands into the postzygapophyses: these
have coalesced with the præzygapophyses in the succeeding vertebra
(Pl. V. fig. 2, _z_), as has happened also between this and the third
vertebra. In the last of the three vertebræ the postzygapophyses are
entire (ib. _z_ 3), and show very slightly concave, oval articular
surfaces, looking obliquely downward and outward (ib. fig. 4, _z_). The
conjugational foramina, continuously surrounded by bone, are a full
ellipse, and large, the anterior one (ib. figs. 1 & 5, _f_) being 5½
lines in vertical diameter; the second (ib. _f′_) is somewhat less:
these foramina are also rather larger in one of the specimens than in
the other. The length of the three coalesced dorsals is the same in
both, viz. 2 inches 3 lines. The neural spines have run together into a
continuous ridge in fig. 1, _ns_; in fig. 5 the summit is broken off in
both, leaving only the anterior angle of the foremost entire; in both
this inclines forward; the hinder border of the third vertebra (fig. 1,
_ns_) has the same vertical parallel as the back part of the centrum.
The anterior margin of the base of the spine shows a rough surface for
the attachment of ligament (Pl. IV. fig. 1, _ns_). A small foramen
behind the base of each of the coalesced zygapophyses (Pl. V. fig. 2,
_z_ _z_) leads to a canal descending to the neural one, and indicates
superiorly the limits of the otherwise continuously ossified neural
arches.
In the series of detached vertebræ, one (Pl. V. figs. 6 & 7) indicates
by its neural spine and hypapophysis a position at the base of the
neck. The centrum is barely an inch in length; its anterior surface
(ib. fig. 7, _c_) is narrow vertically, broad transversely; both
fore and hind surfaces indicate freedom and extent of flexure. The
hypapophysis has a broad, bituberculate base (ib. _hy_), but is limited
in fore and aft extent to the middle third of the under surface of the
centrum: its length is shown in fig. 6, _hy_. The parapophysis (fig. 7,
_p_) is slender, and expands at both attachments, with an indication of
a terminal surface. The diapophysis (_d_) has a larger costal surface:
it sends forward a convex ridge midway between the di- and zygapophysis
(_z_). The neural canal (fig. 7, _n_) has wider and more fully
elliptical outlets than the hinder dorsal vertebræ, in relation to the
greater extent of motion at the fore part of the series. I conclude
that a free pleurapophysis (_pl_) existed, indicating the present to be
the first of the dorsal series, as shown in Pl. III. The neural spine
is short, broad, obtusely pointed, with a vertically oblong syndesmotic
surface (fig. 7) before and behind. Each postzygapophysis (fig. 6,
_z′_) supports an anapophysial tubercle (_a_).
A cervical vertebra from a position just in advance of the above has
lost the neural spine, but retains the hypapophysis. This process
(ib. figs. 8 & 9, _hy_) is compressed and directed obliquely downward
and forward for an extent of 6 lines; the extremity is rounded:
the length of the centrum of this vertebra is 1 inch 3 lines; the
anterior articular surface is longest transversely, and concave in
that direction, convex vertically; the proportions and curvatures are
transposed in the posterior surface (fig. 9, _c_). The parapophysis
(ib. _p_) is continued from the anterior border of the centrum to the
middle; it is a depressed plate, confluent with the rib (ib. _d_).
The diapophysis forms a short, obtuse projection above its anchylosis
with the rib (ib. _pl_): this projects backward 7 lines in length,
terminating obtusely, and circumscribing a vertebrarterial foramen
(ib. _v_) of a full elliptic shape, 5½ lines in long diameter. The
surfaces of the præzygapophyses (_z_) are larger, and look more upward
and less inward, than in the preceding and the dorsal vertebræ: they
are very slightly concave. Those of the postzygapophyses (fig. 8,
_z′_), with a downward and slightly outward aspect, are in a similar
degree convex. The neural canal, as usual in the cervical series,
expands at its outlets, most so posteriorly (fig. 9, _n_); the middle
of the upper surface of the neural arch is impressed by an elliptical,
rough, ligamentous surface, which slightly rising in the middle is
the sole indication of a neural spine. The upper surface of each
postzygapophysis developes a tuberous anapophysis (figs. 8 & 9, _a_).
The three cervicals that succeed the axis show progressively sinking
neural spines, which subside in the six following vertebræ (Pl. III.).
The third cervical has also the hypapophysis (Pl. XI. fig. 3, _hy_).
In all the other cervicals of the present series the hypapophysis is
wanting, but each parapophysis developes a plate (Pl. V. figs. 10
& 11, Pl. VIII. fig. 1, _p_) to form the sides of the hæmal canal
through which the carotids ran; and the position of such vertebræ
in the cervical series is indicated, respectively, by the degree of
convergence of these processes, in none of which, where entire, have
they met so as to circumscribe the canal: in some of these vertebræ,
however, they are mutilated. They differ chiefly in the position and
shape of the anapophyses (fig. 10, _a_), which advance from above the
postzygapophyses (_z′_), converging towards the middle of the upper
surface of the neural arch, being arrested, save in one instance, at
the sides of the ligamentous surface occupying the common position of
the base of the neural spine.
In the axis vertebra (Pl. V. figs. 12 & 13) the posterior articular
surface, concave vertically, and 3 lines in that extent at its middle
part, is very convex transversely, being continued upon the sides of
the posterior part of the centrum; a thick obtuse hypapophysis (fig.
13, _hy_) descends below this surface: the anterior or odontoid surface
presents the usual form in birds; the odontoid process (ib. _x_) has
a pit at its apex. The prezygapophyses (fig. 12, _z_), of very small
size, project from the outer and fore border of the neural arch, with
their articular surface looking outward and slightly upward; a ridge is
continued from their back part to the base of the postzygapophyses: the
surface (fig. 13, _z′_) in these, 4½ lines in long diameter, is three
times the size of the anterior one; it is concave transversely, and
looks downward and a little outward. The anapophyses (ib. fig. 12, _a_)
are large tubercles rising above the articular surfaces. The base of
the neural spine, 9 lines in length (ib. _ns_), is coextensive with the
neural arch; the spine rises posteriorly to a height of 6 lines, with a
thickness of 2 lines, having a convex upper margin (Pl. III.).
The relative size and position of the cervical vertebræ, as coadjusted
in the position and degree of flexure of the neck represented in
Sir Hans Sloane’s life-size painting of the Dodo, in the British
Museum, are given in Plate III. with the varying proportions of the
pleurapophyses and other processes.
_Ribs._ (Plates III. & IV.)
The specimens of ribs include both vertebral and sternal portions;
that which appears to be the second or third on the right side (Pl.
IV. figs. 7, 7 _a_) is 4 inches 4 lines in length (following the outer
curve), and expands to a breadth of 7 lines at its lower part; the
interval between the articular surfaces of the head and tubercle is 6
lines. The appendage (ib. _a_) has coalesced with the middle of the
hind margin of the shaft. The neck is compressed, with a thin upper
margin; the lower one is continued with a curve upon a strong internal
buttress-like ridge (ib. _b_), which runs to near the fore part of
the flattened body of the rib, where it meets the ridge continued
from the tubercle, about 2 inches down the rib: there is a shallow
channel between these ridges, contracting to their confluence. The
inner surface of the rib is impressed by a deeper and broader channel
behind the buttress: the posterior border expands in the form of a
triangular plate, with a base of about an inch in extent, due to the
complete confluence there of the epipleural process. The anterior
border is thicker, and is almost straight. Towards the sternal end
the pleurapophysis contracts and thickens, terminating in a rough
syndesmotic elliptical surface, 3 lines by 2 (fig. 7, _f_), for the
attachment of the hæmapophysis or sternal rib.
A vertebral rib (ib. fig. 2) which is entire, measures 9 inches in
length (following the outer curve). The head and tubercle are at the
same distance as in the preceding, but the tubercle is broader. The
characters of the body of the rib are very similar; but it is narrower,
not attaining a breadth of 5½ lines at its lower end; the narrowing and
thickening to the articular surface for the sternal rib is more gradual.