Part 7

The humerus of the Goura closely repeats most of the characters described in that of the Dodo; but its length is proportionally greater, being 3 inches 9 lines, nearly equal to that of the sternum or pelvis, whereas the humerus of the Dodo is little more than half the length of either sternum or pelvis. The processes for the attachment of the muscles are, nevertheless, fully as strongly developed in _Didus_ (Pl. VIII. figs. 12 & 14) as in the volant Doves (Pl. XII. figs. 8 & 9, _Goura_); that, indeed, which is a ridge (_r_) on the back part of the shaft in _Didus_, is a mere rough surface in _Goura_, and does not show in _Didunculus_. The pneumatic fossa, which varies in depth in the two humeri of the Dodo, is in both relatively larger and shallower than in _Goura_. The pectoral process is thinner, but relatively rather more produced, in _Didunculus_. The humerus in _Œdicnemus_, _Otis_, and _Charadrius_ has a more longitudinally extended, thinner, and more produced pectoral ridge than in _Didus_ and the _Columbidæ_; there is a more marked ectocondyloid tuberosity, which in _Charadrius_ becomes a pointed process.

There is nothing to be gained by giving the details of the more striking differences which the humerus presents in Penguins, Auks, and birds of prey, as compared with that bone in the Dodo; but a few words may be recorded of the comparison of the humerus of the Dodo with that of the flightless bird of New Zealand so nearly approaching to it in size, which bird is described in the 5th volume of the ‘Transactions’ of the Society under the name of _Cnemiornis_ (p. 395, pl. 66. figs. 7–10). In that extinct species, although the humerus is 5½ inches in length, the parts indicative of the forces by which it was worked are comparatively feebly developed. The ulnar tuberosity is narrower, thicker, more obtuse, and its base has neither the upper nor lower excavation; it rises above the articular head, which is less prominent and narrower than in _Didus_; the pectoral ridge is shorter and situated lower down upon the shaft, not on the same level with the radial tuberosity as it is in _Didus_; the distal articulation is of the same size as in _Didus_, but neither the radial nor the ulnar convexity is so prominent or well-defined.

The ulna of the Dodo is shorter absolutely, and much more so proportionally, than in the Goura and most other volant Doves. In these it exceeds the humerus by about one-fourth its own length; in _Didunculus_ (Pl. III.) it is a little longer than the humerus; in the Dodo (ib.) it is shorter than the humerus. The length of the ulna in _Goura coronata_ is 4 inches 6 lines; it is more bent than in the Dodo; the quill-tubercles, seven or eight in number, are more prominent; nevertheless the rough depression for the insertion of the chief flexor is less deep and less defined. The plumed winglet of the Dodo would seem, therefore, to have been frequently and forcibly moved.

In comparing the femur of the Dodo with that of the largest Dove, the bone appears gigantic. The length of the femur in _Goura coronata_ (Pl. XII. fig. 11) is but 3 inches 3 lines, and it is more slender in proportion to its length than in the Dodo; it, however, repeats the few characteristics, if they may be so termed, of the Dodo’s femur. It has the pneumatic foramen in the same position, perhaps proportionally larger; it has the same large oblong surface for the ligament at the head of the bone; the great trochanter has the same form and disposition, but is not quite so much produced anteriorly; there is a slight depression instead of a ridge for the trochanter minor; the fore part of the inner condyle is relatively thicker and less produced. The femur in _Otis_ and _Œdicnemus_ has a thicker and shorter trochanter major, & more narrow and shallow rotular channel; it is shorter in comparison with the tibia, and more especially with the metatarsus, than in _Didus_ and the Doves.

The femur of _Aptornis otidiformis_[37] is of the same size as that of the Dodo; but it has no pneumatic foramen, the head is more hemispheroid and inclined forward, the ligamentous pit is deeper and more circular, the supracervical articular surface is not defined from that of the head, there is a wider and deeper depression at the fore part of the proximal end of the femur, and a more prominent tuberosity on the back part; the ridge continued from the back part of the shaft to that of the inner condyle is more produced and sharper in _Aptornis_, the fore part of the same condyle is less produced.

The femur in _Cnemiornis_[38] and _Dinornis_[39] is much thicker, in proportion to its length, than in either _Aptornis_ or _Didus_. In _Pezophaps_ the great trochanterian ridge rises higher above the neck, and the shaft has a more uniform thickness, with the inner contour less concave, than in _Didus_.

The characters which have been noted at the proximal and distal ends of the tibia of _Didus_ are repeated in those of the tibia of the _Goura_. The difference in size is more marked than in the femur; the length of the tibia of _Goura coronata_ is 4 inches 7 lines, and its shaft is more slender, in proportion to its length (Pl. XII. fig. 13), than in _Didus_ (Pl. X.). The tendency to a trihedral form of the shaft is less marked in _Goura_; the anterior prominences of the distal condyles are thicker in proportion to the intervening fossa.

In the Vulture the fibular ridge is more parallel with the long axis of the shaft than in _Didus_; the tendinal canal is less cylindrical, has an oblique course from the middle of the anterior surface towards the inner condyle; the fore parts of both distal condyles are less produced and less convex; the distal end is narrower from before backwards in proportion to its breadth; both extremities of the bone are less expanded in proportion to the shaft than in the Dodo.

In the great Plover (_Œdicnemus crepitans_) the tibia, as in other Grallæ, is longer in proportion to its thickness than in _Didus_; the epicnemial process rises higher above and projects further in front of the condylar surfaces before it divides into the pro- and ectocnemial plates; and these are relatively more produced. The fibular ridge is shorter in proportion to the length of the tibia, is more prominent, and more parallel with the axis of the shaft. The distal condyles project further backward than in _Didus_. The tibia in _Charadrius_, _Otis_, _Tantalus_, _Grus_, _Ciconia_, _Mycteria_, _Porphyrio_, opposes similar or equivalent differences to those in _Œdicnemus_, against the affinity of _Didus_ to any of those Grallæ.

In the comparison of the tibia of this extinct flightless bird with that of the _Cnemiornis_, the wonderful development of the plates and processes at the proximal end of the bones in the New Zealand bird is strikingly manifested. In _Cnemiornis_ the fibular ridge runs in a line with the shaft, and does not incline from above obliquely forward as in _Didus_ and the Doves; the ridge on the outer side of the distal fourth of the bone is stronger and sharper in _Cnemiornis_; the tendinal canal is transversely elliptical, medial in position, with a slight inward inclination; the intercondyloid fossa is much wider in _Cnemiornis_. The differences, indeed, in all the characters of the tibia, as compared with _Didus_, in the Vultures, Plovers, Penguins, and terrestrial flightless birds tend to render more instructive and convincing the resemblances which Pigeons present in the same characters to the extinct Mauritian bird.

§ 4. _Conclusion._

The affinities or place in nature of the Dodo being thus determined by the characters of its skeleton, but few words remain to be said on the bearings of present knowledge of this species upon other zoological generalizations.

The researches and observations of naturalists have been carried out to such an extent as to support the conclusion that the _Didus ineptus_ does not now live in any part of the world, and that it never existed save in that part of which the island of Mauritius may be a remnant. Consequently the species there originated; and the most intelligible conception of its mode of origin is that to which I have alluded in the description of the brain-case (p. 39).

The Dodo exemplifies Buffon’s idea[40] of the origin of species through departure from a more perfect original type by degeneration; and the known consequences of the disuse of one locomotive organ and extra use of another indicate the nature of the secondary causes that may have operated in the creation of this species of bird, agreeably with Lamarck’s philosophical conception of the influence of such physiological conditions of atrophy and hypertrophy[41]. The young of all Doves are hatched with wings as small as in the Dodo: that species retained the immature character. The main condition making possible the production and continuance of such a species in the island of Mauritius was the absence of any animal that could kill a great bird incapable of flight. The introduction of such a destroyer became fatal to the species which had lost such means of escape[42]. The Mauritian Doves (_Columba nitidissima_ and _C. meyeri_) that retained their powers of flight continue to exist there.

As I have no reason to offer why one kind of Pigeon should have retained and another lost its powers of flight, nor am able to adduce a particle of evidence of the hypothetical degrees of diminution of the wing-bones to their stunted proportions in _Didus_, any more than in _Dinornis_, I feel that in the foregoing remarks I lay myself open to the rebuke of fellow-labourers who may think with the able authors who last treated of the present subject.

They warn their readers to “beware of attributing anything like _imperfection_ to these anomalous organisms, however deficient they may be in those complicated structures which we so much admire in other creatures. Each animal and plant has received its peculiar organization for the purpose, not of exciting the admiration of other beings, but of sustaining its own existence. Its perfection, therefore, consists, not in the number or complication of its organs, but in the adaptation of its whole structure to the external circumstances in which it is destined to live. And, in this point of view, we shall find that every department of the organic creation is equally perfect, the humblest animalcule or the simplest conferva being as completely organized with reference to its appropriate habitat and its destined functions as Man himself, who claims to be lord of all. Such a view of the creation is surely more philosophical than the crude and profane ideas entertained by Buffon and his disciples”[43].

Nevertheless the truth, as we have or feel it, should be told. In the end it may prove to be the more acceptable service. The _Didus ineptus_, L., through its degenerate or imperfect structure, howsoever acquired, has perished. What have the stigmatizers of Buffon to offer in lieu of his theory as applied to the origin of this species of bird? They begin by asking, “Why does the whale possess the germs of teeth which are never used for mastication? and why was the Dodo endowed with wings at all, when those wings were useless for locomotion? This question,” they own, “is too wide and too deep to plunge into at present.” They nevertheless proceed to remark, “These apparently anomalous facts are really the indications of laws which the Creator has been pleased to follow in the construction of organized beings; they are inscriptions in an unknown hieroglyphic, which we are quite sure mean _something_, but of which we have scarcely begun to master the alphabet. There appear, however, reasonable grounds for believing that the Creator has assigned to each class of animals a definite type or structure, from which He has never departed, even in the most exceptional or eccentric modifications of form. Thus, if we suppose, for instance, that the abstract idea of a Mammal implied the presence of teeth, and the idea of a Bird the presence of wings, we may then comprehend why in the Whale and the Dodo these organs are merely _suppressed_, not wholly _annihilated_”[44].

This notion of type-forms or centres, unfortunately, has not merely relation to abstract biological speculations or theories, but to practical questions on which the true progress of Natural History vitally depends. If such types do exist, the National Museum, it is argued, may be restricted to their exhibition: and so our legislators and the public were assured by the Professor of Natural History in the Government School of Mines[45], when the question was before the “House” four years ago. I have let slip no suitable occasion[46] to combat and expose what has seemed to me to be both an erroneous and mischievous view, most obstructive to the best interests of the science; and, standing alone as I seemed to do on this point in the array of evidence before the “Parliamentary Committee on the British Museum, 1860,” I was glad to find my views on type-forms adopted and paraphrased by the President of the British Association in his Inaugural Address at the Meeting at Nottingham[47], in the present year.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES.

PLATE I.

Ideal Scene in the island of Mauritius before its discovery, in 1598, by the Dutch, founded on:—

Fig. 1. Picture of the Dodo, by Roelandt Savery, 1626, in the Royal Gallery of Berlin.

Fig. 2. Fac-simile of R. Savery’s Picture of the Dodo, in the possession of the late Wm. J. Broderip, Esq., F.R.S. (no date).

Fig. 3. Picture of the Dodo, by R. Savery, 1628, in the Imperial Collection of the Belvedere, Vienna.

Each figure is coloured, and of the exact size, as in the original paintings.

PLATE II.

Two views of the Dodlet (_Didunculus strigirostris_, Peale; _Gnathodon_, Jardine), natural size, from the living bird, obtained at the Samoan or Navigators’ Islands, and transmitted from Sydney, New South Wales, by George Bennett, M.D., F.L.S.[48], to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, in 1864, where the paintings, of which the above are fac-similes, were made for the present work. A sketch of the dried head of the Dodo in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, of rather less than half the natural size, is introduced into the picture, now in the Author’s possession[49].

PLATE III.

Fig. 1. Side view of the skeleton of the Dodo (_Didus ineptus_, L.), with an outline of the bird as represented in the oil-painting presented to the British Museum by Edwards, Naturalist and Librarian of the Royal Society, into whose possession it came at the decease, in 1753, of Sir Hans Sloane, P.R.S., with the statement, or tradition, that the painting had been made, of the natural size, from a living specimen of the Dodo, in Holland. The bones represented in profile, of the natural size[50], testify to the accuracy of the form and proportions of the Dodo given in the painting.

Fig. 2. An outline of the Samoan Dove or Dodlet (_Didunculus strigirostris_, Peale; _Gnathodon strigirostris_, Jardine[51]), of the natural size, from the specimen sent by Dr. G. Bennett, and living, in 1864, in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, with a view of the skeleton, corresponding with that of the Dodo.

PLATE IV.

Fig. 1. Front view of the fourth (or first of the three confluent) dorsal vertebræ (centrum and neural arch).

Fig. 2. Vertebral rib, or pleurapophysis, of the same vertebra, front view.

Fig. 3. Sternal rib, or hæmapophysis, of the same vertebra: _a_, outer side; _b_, upper or pleural end; _c_, lower or sternal end; _d_, front margin; _e_, inner surface.

Fig. 4. Front view of sternum, or connate mass of hæmal spines, including that of the same (fourth dorsal) vertebra.

Fig. 5. Inner surface of an anterior pleurapophysis, with coalesced appendage, _a_.

Fig. 6. Oblique view of ditto, ditto.

Fig. 7. Anterior pleurapophysis, with appendage, _a_, front view: _c_, capitular end; _d_, tubercular end; _f_, hæmal end; 7 _a_, outer surface; 7 _b_, inner surface.

Fig. 8. An anterior pleurapophysis, front view.

Fig. 9. Posterior surface of the upper end of a posterior pleurapophysis: 9 _a_, body and lower end of ditto.

Fig. 10. Part of a pleurapophysis which has been broken and healed.

Fig. 11. Lower end of a posterior dorsal pleurapophysis, with connate rudiment of appendage, _a_.

Fig. 12. Hæmapophysis.

PLATE V[52].

Fig. 1. Fourth, fifth, and sixth dorsal vertebræ, anchylosed, side view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, ditto, upper view.

Fig. 3. Ditto, ditto, under view.

Fig. 4. Ditto, ditto, back view.

Fig. 5. Ditto, ditto, mutilated, of another Dodo.

Fig. 6. Anterior dorsal vertebra, side view.

Fig. 7. Ditto, front view; _pl_, outline of heads of floating rib.

Fig. 8. Penultimate cervical vertebra, side view.

Fig. 9. Ditto, back view.

Fig. 10. Middle cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 11. Ditto, under view.

Fig. 12. Axis, or second cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 13. Ditto, under view.

PLATE VI.

Fig. 1. Under view of sternum.

Fig. 2. Upper or inner view.

Fig. 3. Back view.

PLATE VII.

Fig. 1. Under or inner view of pelvis.

Fig. 2. Upper or outer view of pelvis.

PLATE VIII.

Fig. 1. Middle cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 2. Fifth cervical vertebra, upper view.

Fig. 3. Fourth cervical vertebra, under view.

Fig. 4. Right coracoid and clavicle.

Fig. 5. Left coracoid and clavicle.

Fig. 6. Right scapula, outer view.

Fig. 7. Right scapula, inner view.

Fig. 8. Left moiety of scapular arch, outer view.

Fig. 9. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 10. Upper articular end of right coracoid.

Fig. 11. Lower ditto.

Fig. 12. Left humerus, anconal or back surface.

Fig. 13. Left humerus, ulnar or inner surface.

Fig. 14. Left ditto, palmar or front surface. A. Ditto, proximal or upper end. B. Ditto, radial side of upper half. C. Ditto, distal end.

Fig. 15. Right radius.

Fig. 16. Right ulna, inner or radial side.

Fig. 17. Ditto, outer or ulnar side.

PLATE IX.

Fig. 1. Left femur, front view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 3. Ditto, back view.

Fig. 4. Ditto, upper end.

Fig. 5. Ditto, lower end.

PLATE X.

Fig. 1. Left tibia, front view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 3. Ditto, back view.

Fig. 4. Ditto, upper end.

Fig. 5. Ditto, lower end.

Fig. 6. Left fibula, outer view.

Fig. 7. Ditto, inner view.

Fig. 8. Ditto, upper view.

PLATE XI.

Fig. 1. Longitudinal vertical section of mutilated skull.

Fig. 2. Ditto of third cervical vertebra.

Fig. 3. Ditto of lower cervical vertebra.

Fig. 4. Transverse vertical section of sternum.

Fig. 5. Longitudinal section of humerus.

Fig. 6. Ditto of upper end of femur.

Fig. 7. Ditto of lower end of femur.

Fig. 8. Ditto of upper end of tibia.

Fig. 9. Ditto of lower end of tibia.

Fig. 10. Ditto of metatarsus.

PLATE XII.

Fig. 1. Sternum of _Didunculus_, upper view.

Fig. 2. Ditto, front view.

Fig. 3. Sternum of _Goura_, upper view.

Fig. 4. Sternum of _Podargus humeralis_, under view.

Fig. 5. Pelvis of _Goura_, under or inner view, half natural size.

Fig. 6. Pelvis of _Gyps_ (Vulture), under or inner view, half natural size.

Fig. 7. Left moiety of scapular arch, _Goura_.

Fig. 8. Left humerus of _Goura_, anconal surface.

Fig. 9. Ditto, palmar surface of upper end.

Fig. 10. Ditto, palmar surface of lower end.

Fig. 11. Right femur of _Goura_, front view.

Fig. 12. Ditto, back view of upper end, and back view of lower end.

Fig. 13. Right tibia and fibula of _Goura_, front view.

All the figures are of the natural size, save when otherwise expressed. The letters are explained in the text.

THE END.

PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] By +William John Broderip+, Esq., F.R.S. The part containing the article was published in 1836, the volume (ix.) appeared in 1837.

[2] “So in Willughby, but the print is somewhat indistinct, and there maybe error. In the original the words are ‘_Walgh-Vogel_, hoc est, nauseam movens, partim quod’ &c., the word therefore is an interpolation.”

[3] These and other grotesque figures, which may be seen, copied, in Strickland’s History of the Dodo (‘Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848), from the old authors cited by Broderip, are mere matters of curiosity, and are here omitted as devoid of scientific value.

[4] This head, in the condition of a skull, has subsequently been discovered at Copenhagen.—R. O.

[5] The outline of the Dodo in this painting is given, of the natural size, in Pl. III. of the present work; the reduced woodcut (_tom. cit._ p. 51, copied by Strickland, _op. cit._ p. 28) is, therefore, not here reproduced.—R. O.

[6] “This curious statement is extracted in the recent edition of Sir Thomas Brown’s works by Wilkins: published by Pickering.” [8vo, 1836, vol. i. p. 369, vol. ii. 173. The reference, in Strickland (_op. cit._ p. 22), to vol. i. p. 369. is to a Letter by Sir Hamon L’Estrange to Dr. Browne, not containing any allusion to the Dodo.—R. O.]

[7] Art. +Dodo+, Penny Cyclopædia, vol. ix. p. 62 (1837).

[8] “London, 4to, Reeve and Co., 1848.”

[9] “Vol. ix. p. 47 (1837).”

[10] “Penny Cyclopædia, vol. xxiii. (1842).”

[11] Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, vol. iv. part vi. p. 183.

[12] “Dict. des Monogrammes, 1 partie, pp. 201, 274.”

[13] “I am indebted to Mr. Russell for this information.”

[14] “_Nautilus pompilius._”

[15] _Op. cit._ p. 30.

[16] Edwards’s ‘Natural History of Birds and other Rare and undescribed Animals,’ &c., 4to, vol. vi. pl. 294, 1760.

[17] “Pendant tout le temps qu’on fut là, en vécut de tortues, de dodarses, de pigeons, de perroquets gris, et d’autre chasse, qu’on allait prendre avec les mains dans les bois.... La chair des tortues terrestres étoit d’un fort bon goût. On en sala, et l’on fit fumer, dent on se trouva fort bien, de même que des dodarses qu’on sala.” (Recueil des Voiages de la Compagnie des Indes Or., vol. iii. pp. 195, 199, quoted by Strickland, _op. cit._ p. 17.)

[18] ‘History of the Mauritius,’ p. 145*, compiled from the Baron’s papers by his son.

[19] See Annals of Nat. Hist. ser. 2. vol. vi. p. 290 (1850).