Chapter V: Part 5

The translation of the Sieur D.B.'s (Abbé Dubois) description is as follows:--"Waterhens which are as large as fowls. They are always black, and have a large white crest on the head." For the anatomical description I must refer my readers to Professor Milne-Edwards.

Habitat: Bourbon.

Milne-Edwards gives so many details in which _Fulica newtoni_ agrees with _Palaeolimnas chathamensis_ that I feel convinced that the former is not a true _Fulica_, and, until we know its skull and can decide for certain, I think it is best to include it in the genus _Palaeolimnas_. 16 tibiae, 30 metatarsi, 8 humeri, 2 sternums, 4 fragments and an entire pelvis and sacrum, and 3 cervical vertebrae in the Tring Museum.

PALAEOLIMNAS PRISCA (HAMILTON).

_Fulica prisca_ Hamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXV, p. 98 (1893).

This bird was nearly as large as _Notornis_, but with a very small head and with a frontal shield. It was probably a poor flier, though not flightless, as _Fulica chathamensis_ was. It was smaller than the latter. Measurements, according to Hamilton:--

_prisca_. _newtoni_. _chathamensis_.

Femur: Length 78-93 mm. -- 85 mm.
Tibio-tarsus: Length 143-162 " 144 mm. 152-163 "
Tarso-metatarsus: Length 81-98 " 88 " 96 "

Habitat: Middle Island, New Zealand.

{151}

LEGUATIA SCHLEGEL.

Body not larger than that of a goose; wings rather short but still fitted for flight; feathers of the legs reaching down almost to the top of the tarso-metatarsus; toes long and completely free, middle toe almost as long as tarso-metatarsus. Bill with a naked shield reaching back beyond the eye. Height about 6 feet.

LEGUATIA GIGANTEA SCHLEGEL.

(PLATE 31.)

_Le Géant_ Leguat, Voyages (1708), p. 171, English edition.

_Leguatia gigantea_ Schlegel, Versl. Med. Akad. Wetensch. Amst. VII, p.
142 (1858).

Leguat's description is as follows: "... and many of those birds called giants, because they are six feet high. They are extremely high mounted, and have very long necks. Their bodies are not bigger than that of a goose. They are all white, except a little place under their wings, which is reddish. They have a goose's bill, only a little sharper; their claws are very long and divided." This bird was apparently confined to the island of Mauritius.

Professor Newton asserts that Leguat's "Géants" were Flamingos, principally because bones of Flamingos have been found in Mauritius and not a single bone has ever been got of the "géant." This argument is, in my opinion, insufficient, and no evidence at all. We know that a Didine bird and a gigantic rail existed on Réunion, but no bones are yet known of these. I think, like Professor Schlegel, that Leguat's figure and description cannot be meant for a Flamingo and that they prove the former existence of a gigantic ralline bird in Mauritius.

The figure is made up from Leguat's description. The bill is drawn like that of a gigantic moorhen, and so are the feet.

Habitat: Mauritius.

{153}

ALCA IMPENNIS L.

THE GREAT AUK.

(PLATE 38.)

_Penguin_ Hore, in Hakluyt's Coll. Voyages III p. 129 (Ed. 1600--ex
Hore).

_Anser Magelanicus s. Pinguinus_ Worm, Museum Wormianum, Lib. III,
Cap. 19, p. 300, 301 (1655--Figured from a specimen from the Faröe
Islands).

_Penguin_ Willoughby, Orn. Lib. III p. 242 pl. 65 (1676).

_Northern Penguin_ Edwards, Nat. Hist. Uncommon B. etc., III p. 147
pl. 147 (1750--First good coloured plate, from a specimen from
Newfoundland).

_Geyervogel_ Linnaeus, Fauna Suecica p. 43 no. 119 (1746).

_Alca impennis_ Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X p. 130 (1758--Ex fauna
Sueciva no. 119, Mus. Worm. l.c., Willoughby l.c., and Edwards
l.c.); Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. XII, I, p. 210 (1766); Naumann,
Nat. Voy. Deutschl. XII p. 630 pl. 337 (1844); Dresser, B. Europe
VIII p. 563, pl. 620 (1880); Seebohm, Hist. Brit. B. III p. 371
(1885).

_Alca borealis_ Forster, Syn. Cat. Brit. B. p. 29 (1817--nomen
nudum).

_Plautus impennis_ Brünnich, Zool. Fundamenta p. 78 (1772); Baird,
Brewer and Ridgway, Water Birds N. Amer., II p. 467 (1884); Grant,
Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXVI p. 563 (1898).

FOR FULL DESCRIPTIONS, LITERATURE, HISTORY, LIST OF REMAINS, SEE:--

_Japetus Steenstrup_: Bidrag til Geirfuglens Naturhistorie etc.,
Kjöbenhavn (Copenhagen) 1857 (In Naturh-Forening. Vidensk. Meddel.
1855, nos. 3-7).

_Alfred Newton_: Abstract of Mr. Wolley's Researches in Iceland
respecting the Gare-fowl. (In Ibis, 1861, pp. 374-399).

_William Preyer_: Ueber Plautus impennis. (In Journal f. Orn. 1862
pp. 110-124, 337-356.)

_Alfred Newton_: The Gare-fowl and its Historians. (In Natural
History Review XII, 1865 pp. 467-488); id. in Encycl. Britannica
Ed. IX vol. III; id. Dict. B. p. 220-221.

_Wilhelm Blasius_: Zur Geschichte von _Alca impennis_. Journ. f.
Orn. 1884 pp. 58-176.

_Symington Grieve_: The Great Auk, or Garefowl. Its History,
Archaeology, and Remains. London 1885; Supplem. note on the Great
Auk; in Trans. Edinburgh Field Nat. Soc. (1897) p. 238-273.

_Wilhelm Blasius_: Der Riesenalk, Alca impennis L. (In the New
Edition of Naumann Naumann, Naturg. d. Vögel Mitteleuropas) Vol.
XII p. 169-208, plates 17, 17a-17d (1903).

Probably the first mention of Great Auks is that in André Thevet's book "Les singularitéz de la France antarctique ...," Anvers 1558, where a large bird was mentioned under the name of "Aponars," Apponatz or "Aponath." But evidently this name covered several other sea-birds, and it is at least doubtful if it was solely applied to the Great Auk. The same applies to the remarks by Jacques Cartier, as translated in R. Hakluyt's collection of voyages. On the other hand there is no doubt that the "Penguin" mentioned by Robert Hore in 1536 (Hakluyt, Collection of Voyages III, p. 129--1600, and other Editions) was actually the Great Auk. In fact "Penguin" has been the name usually applied to the Great Auk {154} and is even now used for it by the French, while in most other languages it has been transferred, from an early date, to the Antarctic flightless birds, the _Spheniscidae_.

All the first reports are from Newfoundland and thereabout, and even Clusius (Exoticorum libri decem, Lib. V, p. 103--1605), who gives a rather poor but perfectly recognizable figure, describes it first (p. 103) as a native of America, under the name of "Mergus Americanus." Later on, however, in the "Auctarium," on p. 367, he mentions it, on the authority of Henricus Hojerus, as found in the Faröe Islands, under the name "Goirfugel." Hojerus was also the authority for the account given in Nieremberg, Hist. Nat., etc., p. 215 (1635). The first comparatively good figure was published in 1655, in the "Museum Wormianum," on p. 301, from a specimen brought alive from the Faröe Islands. Curiously enough the figure shows a white ring round the neck, which no Great Auk, of course, possesses.

Linnaeus, when first bestowing a scientific name on the Great Auk, in 1758, l.c., gave the following short diagnosis and references:--

"Alca rostro compresso--ancipiti sulcato, macula ovata utrinque ante
oculos. Fn. Svec. 119.

Anser magellanicus. Worm. mus. 300 t. 301.

Penguin. Will. ornith. 244 t. 65 Edw. av. 147 t. 147.

_Habitat in_ Europa _arctica_."

From referring to the literature he quotes, there can, of course, be no doubt as to what species he refers.

The most detailed descriptions are probably those given in the New Edition of Naumann (see above), where also a list of literature and figures is given, fully seven folio pages long! As regards the difference in the sexes little is known, because very few specimens exist of which the sex has been ascertained. We find, however, some with the grooves and ridges on the bill more marked, and the grooves purer white, while others have the grooves of a dirtier white and less strongly developed; as these latter are apparently mostly smaller, I think they must be females, the former males. In this case my two specimens would be females, and the one now in Professor Koenig's possession an adult male. Probably somewhat similar seasonal changes took place as in _Alca torda_, and Professor Blasius (l.c.) has described them. It must, however, be remembered, that the date of capture is known of but a few examples, and that by far the majority of all those that exist in collections have been killed in spring, on their breeding-places.

Nobody can doubt that the Great Auk is extinct. The last specimens were obtained on Eldey, near Iceland, in 1844, and the seas and islands {155} where the great bird used to live are frequented by vessels every year. It is true that a certain Lorenz Brodtkorb told that in April, 1848, he saw four Great Auks, of which he shot one, near the Varanger Fjord, east of the North-Cape, but Professor Newton and Wolley have, in 1855, had an interview with Brodtkorb, and came to the conclusion that he saw and shot the Great Northern Diver. This is the more likely to be the case, as the occurrence north of the Arctic Circle is as yet uncertain, the finding of Great Auks both on the island of Disco (west-coast of Greenland) and on Grimsey and Mevenklint on the north coast of Iceland being open to doubt.

From sub-fossil and prehistoric finds, we know that the Great Auk formerly inhabited Norway and Sweden, Denmark, with Seeland, Sejerö and Havnö, the British Islands (Cleadon Hills in County Durham, Scotland, Ireland), the east coast of North America from Labrador to Florida.

In historic times we know of the occurrence on the islands near Labrador, Greenland--where it certainly used to breed on the east coast, but was probably only of rare and exceptional occurrence on the west coast--Iceland, the Faröe Islands, Fair Island between the Orkney and Shetland Islands (doubtful), Orkneys (Papa Westra), St. Kilda, Skye, and Waterford Harbour in Ireland. But as breeding stations within historic times the following only are absolutely certain:--

1. Funk Islands near Newfoundland.
2. Iceland (Geirfuglasker, Grimsey, Eldey).
3. Faröe Islands.
4. St. Kilda.
5. Orkney Islands.

While we know of regular occurrence and may assume that the bird has been breeding on the north and west side of Newfoundland, and in east Greenland (opposite Iceland).

The remains of the Great Auk and its eggs in collections are more numerous than one would think, considering the enormous prices paid for mounted specimens and eggs. There are at present known 79 or 80 skins, 26 or 27 skeletons, a great quantity of detached bones, and about 73 eggs.

I HAVE IN MY MUSEUM:

1. One adult female, formerly in the collection of the late Comte de
Riocour at Vitry-le-François, in France. I bought this specimen from
the late Alphonse Boucard, together with the bulk of the birds of the
Riocour collection. It is evidently an adult female, having the white
lines on the bill not very much developed, and showing a distinct grey
tinge on the flanks. This shade is present in both my Great Auks; the
feathers of the flanks, just under the wing, are nearly white, with a
conspicuous, very light grey border. This grey tinge is present in all
females, but appears to be absent in adult males. My bird is apparently
in worn breeding plumage. As it was not very well mounted and the feet
slightly damaged, I had it reduced to a "skin."

{156} 2. Another adult female. I purchased this from Mr. Rowland Ward,
who had it from Mr. Leopold Field in London, in 1897. According to a
letter, dated Paris le 20 Jan., 1890, written by the late A. Boucard,
who sold it in that year to Mr. Field, the history is as follows: "This
bird was captured in Iceland in 1837, did first belong to Mr. Eimbeck
of Brunswick and afterwards in the collection of Mr. Bruch from
Mayence." We must accept this information by the late A. Boucard as
correct, though it is difficult to understand that in the most
painstaking and exact list of remains of the Great Auk, by Prof.
Wilhelm Blasius of Braunschweig, or anywhere else, no mention is made
of a specimen in the possession of the late Eimbeck, or the late Bruch.
Moreover, we have no explanation where this Auk has been between the
time of Bruch's death and 1890, when Boucard sold it to Mr. Field in
London.

This specimen has been described as "immature," but this is a mistake.
Evidently it arose from some white speckles being visible on the neck
_in the photograph_ (see Symington Grieve, Trans. Edinburgh Field Nat.
and Micros. Society, explanation to plate III, on page 269). The
specimen itself, however, shows no white speckles, but only worn
feathers, out of which the illusion arose in the photograph. This error
has also been transferred to the admirable treatise on the Great Auk in
the New Edition of Naumann. The grey shade "on the body lower than the
wing," mentioned by Mr. Symington Grieve, is not a sign of immaturity,
but appears in all adult females, though it is said to be absent in
males.

Some years ago an extraordinary rumour was current in Germany about the Great Auk in the Brehm collection; it was said to have been exchanged by the widow of Pastor C. L. Brehm for a rare Dresden cup, and that its present resting-place was unknown. I do not know who invented this story, or how it arose, but suffice it to say, that the Auk which was in the Brehm collection was sold to the late King of Italy, in 1868 or 1869. The business was concluded by Dr. Otto Finsch, and the money was used for the benefit of a brother of the late Dr. A. E. Brehm, as it had been the wish of his father, Pastor Brehm. The specimen was re-stuffed by the late taxidermist Schwerdtfeger in Bremen and forwarded to a professor in Florence. It was kept for years at the "Veneria Reale," and recently, when the collection at that castle was dissolved, was placed in the Museum at Rome. It is one of the finest Great Auks known.

{157}

AESTRELATA CARIBBAEA (CARTE).

(PLATE 37.)

_Procellaria jamaicensis_ Bancroft, Zoological Journal V, p. 81
(1835--Nomen nudum!).

_Pterodroma caribbaea_ Carte, P.Z.S. 1866, p. 93, pl. 10 ("Blue
Mountains in insula Jamaica").

_Aestrelata caribbaea_ Giglioli & Salvadori, Ibis 1869, p. 66.

_Fulmarus caribbaeus_ Gray, Handlist B. III, p. 107 (1871).

_Aestrelata jamaicensis_ Ridgway, Man. N. Am. B., p. 67; Cory, Cat.
West-Indian B., p. 84 (1892).

_Oestrelata jamaicensis_ Salvin, Cat. B. Brit. Mus, p. 403 (1896).

It is surprising that the name _jamaicensis_ has generally been adopted for this species, as Bancroft gave no description whatever. The first description is that of Carte, in 1866, which is as follows:--"Head, neck, back, and wings of a uniform dark sooty brown; vertex and external webs of the primaries a shade or so darker; abdominal feathers and under tail-coverts a shade or two lighter than those of the back; upper tail-coverts and basal portion of tail-feathers of a light grey or dirty white. The light-coloured patch on the rump is conspicuous when the wings are expanded, but completely concealed when they are closed. Irides dark hazel. Tarsi, toes, webs, and nails jet-black.

"Length about 12¾ inches; expanse of wings 34 inches; length from carpal joint to tip of first primary 10¾ inches; length of bill, measured from gape, 1-5/8 inches; length of nasal tubes 5/16 inch; length of interval between nostrils and commencement of apical curve of upper mandible ¼ inch; length of tarsi 1-5/10 inches; length of toes, outer and middle, sub-equal 2 inches; length of inner toe 1-5/8 inches. First and second primaries sub-equal, and about ½ inch longer than the third. Tail about 4½ inches long and round at extremity. The closed wings extend about 1½ inches beyond the tail. Hallux small, and in shape triangular."

"With respect to the habits of the bird, Mr. March has most kindly furnished me with the following interesting details:--

"It is a night-bird, living in burrows in the marly clefts of the mountains at the east and north-east end of the island. The burrows form a gallery 6 to 10 feet long, terminating in a chamber sufficiently commodious to accommodate the pair; from this they sally forth at night, flying over the sea in search of food (fishes), returning before dawn. It is often seen on moonlight nights and at sunrise running about the neighbourhood of its domicile, and sometimes crossing the road, regardless of the labourers going to their work. I know nothing of its nidification." {158}

The type of "_Pterodroma caribbaea_" is preserved in the Dublin Museum, and three specimens are in the British Museum. This bird is one of the rarest in collections, and all modern collectors have failed to obtain specimens. Quite recently (1906) Mr. B. Hyatt Verrill published a pamphlet entitled "Additions to the Avifauna of Dominica." In this unpaginated essay he said under the heading "_Aestrelata jamaicensis_": "Not uncommon (on Dominica), but seldom seen during the day. Breeds at La Bime, Pointe Guignarde, and Lance Bateaux, as well as at Morne Rouge and Scott's Head. In many of the above localities the musky odour of these birds is very pronounced when passing the cliffs, wherein they breed, on a calm evening. At dusk they may often be seen flying about the cliffs in company with myriads of bats that spend the day in the fissures and crevices. They are very difficult to procure, and although shot at repeatedly only two specimens have been obtained."

From all former evidence we might have well considered this species to be extinct, but if Mr. Verrill's statement is correct it would be far from exterminated. I do not, however, know if the Dominica specimens have been compared with Jamaica examples, and if Mr. Verrill's determination (apparently made on Dominica) is therefore correct.

Habitat: Jamaica. {159}

AESTRELATA HASITATA (KUHL).

_Procellaria hasitata_ (sic) Kuhl, Beitr. z. Zool. Temminck, Pl. Col.
416 (1826); Gould, B Australia VII, pl. 47 (1845).

_Procellaria diabolica_ Lafresnaye, Rev. Zool. 1844, p. 168.

_Procellaria meridionalis_ Lawrence, Ann. Lyceum N.Y. IV, p. 475
(1848-- ), V, pl. 15, p. 220 (1852).

_Procellaria rubritarsi_ Newton, Zoologist 1852, p. 3692 (ex Gould's
MS., descr. nulla).

_Aestrelata haesitata_ Bonaparte, Compt. Rend. XLII, p. 768 (1856),
Elliot, B. N. America II. pl. 60, fig. 1 (1868); Rothsch. & Hart, New
Edition of "Naumann" XII, p. 20 (1903).

_Aestrelata diabolica_ Bonap., Consp. Av. II, p. 189 (1855).

_Oestrelata haesitata_ Newton, Ibis 1870, p. 277; Dresser, B. Europe
VIII, p. 545, pl. 618 (1880); Stevens, B. of Norfolk, III, p. 361, pl.
4 (1890); Salvin, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXV, p. 403 (1896).

Mr. Saunders describes this bird as follows: "The adult has the crown and nape dark brown, hind-neck white, cheeks and ear-coverts greyish; mantle dark brown; upper tail-coverts white; central tail-feathers chiefly brownish-black, the rest more or less white on their basal portions but broadly edged with brown; forehead and under-parts white; bill black; legs and feet dusky-yellow. Length 16 inches, wing 11.3 inches. The immature bird is believed to be mottled with brown on the forehead and to be duller in tint on the upper parts."

Though evidently not quite extinct, it seems certain that the fate of this bird is sealed. In former times it used to breed in great numbers on several of the West Indian Islands: Hayti, Guadeloupe, and Dominica. Its last breeding place was the Morne au Diable or Morne Diablotin on Dominica. There it was searched for in vain by Colonel Feilden, in 1889, who wrote a lengthy article about it in the "Trans. Norfolk and Norwich Nat. Society" V. p. 24-39. Mr. Selwyn Branch again, ten years later, ascended La Morne au Diable, and found the old breeding places deserted. The "Manicou," evidently an introduced North-American Opossum, Mongoose and rats had entirely extirpated the "Diable."

Two-and-a-half centuries ago Père du Tertre found this Petrel breeding on Guadeloupe, and Père Labat, about forty years later, found it in great numbers, and gave a long, graphic description of it in his "Nouveau Voyage aux isles de l'Amérique" (Edit. I, Vol. II, pp. 349-353). These birds were then known as the "Diable" or "Diablotin," and their flesh was highly esteemed, and they were even salted and exported to Martinique and other French islands in great numbers. {160}

In 1876 Mr. F. A. Ober searched already unsuccessfully for our birds.

It seems that the disturbance and destruction on their breeding places has scattered these Petrels about, for specimens have at various times been taken on the coast of Florida and Virginia, and even as late as 1893 and 1895, inland of the State of New York on Oneida Lake, in Ulster County, Vermont and Ontario; moreover, a specimen has been killed in 1850 in Norfolk, England, and an example in the Museum of Boulogne is said to have been killed in the neighbourhood of that town.

In an undated and unpaginated pamphlet, received last year in Europe, Mr. A. Hyatt Verrill informs us that this bird is "not uncommon on the fishing grounds and in Martinique and Guadeloupe channels," and that he took a specimen in September, 1904. This statement requires confirmation.

In collections this bird is very rare. I have the male (in moult) which was caught on August 28th, 1893 on Oneida Lake, in the State of New York.

Habitat: West Indian Islands.

{161}

HEMIPHAGA SPADICEA (LATH.)

(PLATE 21.)

_Chestnut-shouldered Pigeon_ Latham, Gen. Syn. Suppl. II, add. p. 375
(1802--Norfolk Island).

_Columba spadicea_ Latham, Ind. Orn., Suppl. p. LX, No. 7
(1802--Norfolk Island); Temminck and Knip, Pigeons, II, p. 1, pl. 1
(1808--"Friendly Islands."--Errore).

_Columba gigas_ Ranzani, Elementi di Zool. III, 1, p. 223
(1821--"Friendly Islands."--Errore).

_Columba princeps_ Vigors, P.Z.S. 1833, p. 78 (Australia--errore).

_Columba leucogaster_ Wagler, Syst. Av., Columba spec. 12
(1827--Norfolk Island).

_Hemiphaga spadicea_ Salvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 238 (1893).

The Norfolk Island Pigeon, _Hemiphaga spadicea spadicea_, is very similar to the New Zealand Pigeon, _Hemiphaga spadicea novaezealandiae_, but differs in having the hind-neck coppery or metallic green, sharply defined from the chestnut back, the wings and upper wing-coverts more greyish, less greenish, also the lower back and rump somewhat more greyish.

As far as we know this pigeon was only found on Norfolk Island, the locality "Australia" being doubtless erroneous. Like so many other birds it became extinct on Norfolk Island, probably more than half a century ago.

There are evidently quite a number of specimens in various museums, many of which have never been recorded. I am aware of the following examples:

1 in the British Museum (Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 238).
3 in the Liverpool Museum (Bull. Liverp. Mus. I, p. 35).
1 in my own collection (Proc. IV. Orn. Congress, p. 215).
1 in Philadelphia, U.S. America (Cassin, U.S. Expl. Exp. B, p. 225).
1 in Frankfurt a.M. (Hartert, Kat. Vogelsamml., p. 189).
1 in Wiesbaden (Lampe, Jahrb. Nassau Ver. 58).
1 in Bremen (Hartlaub, Verz. Museum, p. 98).
1 in Lisbon (Forbes and Rob., Bull. Liverp. Mus. II, p. 130).
1 in Leyden (Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas).
1 in Vienna (Ibis 1860, p. 422).
1 in Naples, seen by myself.
1 in Milan, examined by myself.

The specimen at Tring was bought at the auction of the "Cumberland Museum" at Distington.

{163}

ALECTROENAS NITIDISSIMA (SCOP.)

(PLATE 22.)

_Pigeon hollandais_ Sonnerat, Voy. Ind. Orient. II, p. 175, pl. 101
(1782).

_Hackled Pigeon_ Latham, Syn. B. II, 2, p. 641, No. 36 (1783).

_Columba nitidissima_ Scopoli, Del. Flor. and Faun. Insubr. II, p. 93,
No. 89 (1786) (ex Sonnerat).

_Columba franciae_ Gmelin, Syst. Nat. I, 2, p. 779, No. 51 (1788). (ex
Sonnerat).

_Columba botanica_ Bonnaterre, Enc. Méth. I, p. 233 (1790).

_Ramier périssé_ Levaillant, Ois. d'Afr. VI, p. 74, pl. 267 (1808).

_Columba jubata_ Wagler, Syst. Av., _Columba_, sp. 22 (1827).

_Alectroenas nitidissima_ G. R. Gray, List Gen. B., p. 58 (1840).

_Alectroenas franciae_ Reichenbach, Syn. Av., _Columbariae_, p. 2, f.
1302 (1847).

_Columbigallus franciae_ Des Murs, Encycl. d'Hist. Nat., Ois. VI., p.
31, (1854?).

_Ptilopus nitidissimus_ Schlegel and Pollen, Rech. Faun. Madag., p. 159
(1868).

_Alectroenas nitidissimus_ G. R. Gray, Hand-list II, p. 228, No. 9164
(1870).

_Alectoroenas nitidissimus_ A. Newton, P. Z. S. 1879, pp. 2-4.

Sonnerat's original description, translated into English, is as follows: "It is much larger than the European Woodpigeon; the feathers of the head, neck and breast are long, narrow, and end in a point. These feathers are rather curiously constructed, they have the polish, brilliancy, and feel of a cartilaginous blade. I could not, with the aid of a lens, distinguish whether these blades were formed by the conglomeration of the barbules, but we may take it for granted that they are constituted in a like manner to the wing appendages of the Bohemian Waxwing and the cartilaginous blades of Sonnerat's Jungle Fowl. The eye is surrounded by naked skin of a deep red; the back, the wings and the belly are of a dark blue; the rump and tail are of a very bright carmine red; the beak and iris are of the same colour, and the feet are black."

Undoubtedly quite extinct. Only three specimens are known of this bird: one in Edinburgh, one in Paris, and one in Mauritius. Some bones were collected by the Rev. H. H. Slater.

Habitat: Mauritius. {164}

ALECTROENAS(?) RODERICANA (MILNE-EDWARDS).

_Columba rodericana_ Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sc. Nat. (5) XIX art. 3, p.
16, pl. 12, ff. 1, 1a, 1b, 1c (1874).

The original description of the sternum is as follows:--"It belongs to a species small in size, barely as large as _T. tympanistria_, but evidently much better built for flight. In fact the most striking characters of this sternum are the large size of the bouclier, the large size of the lateral notches, and the shape of the keel, whose anterior angle is not much produced in front. The coracoidal grooves are large and only slightly oblique. The lateral branches detach themselves from the bone in front of the costal facets--they are very widely spread, and stretch more directly outwards than in the remainder of the species of the family. The lower lateral branches are equally divergent, and the median blade of the posterior edge is remarkable from its enlargement. The keel is moderately prominent, its anterior angle is much rounded, and does not reach the level of the episternal apophysis, as is the case, as a rule, in the pigeons. All these peculiarities, to which must be added the general flattening of the bone which is hardly at all sloped like a roof, separate the pigeon of Rodriguez very widely, not only from _Erythroena_ and _Turtur_, but also from _Vinago_. In its shape in general, by the little pronounced keel and the direction of the latter, this sternum presents certain analogies to the essentially arboreal species such as those of the genus _Carpophaga_, but they all differ in having the space for the costal facets on the sides of the sternum much more extended, the superior lateral branches larger, and the latter arising further back, so that the lateral notches are smaller. Up to the present I do not know any genus of the family of _Columbidae_ in which the sternum can at all be likened to that found recently in Rodriguez, and therefore in all probability this fossil remainder is of yet another vanished species, which I propose to call _Columba rodericana_." (Translated.)

It is probable that Milne-Edwards's _C. rodericana_ belonged to the genus _Alectroenas_, and was the representative on Rodriguez of the _Alectroenas nitidissima_ of Mauritius. 1 humerus in the Tring Museum.

Habitat: Rodriguez.

{165}

NESOENAS SALVAD.

Soles normal, not very broad, only the hind toe with the skin prominently expanded on the sides. First primary about equal to the sixth. Tail entirely rufous, composed of twelve feathers.

NESOENAS MAYERI (PREVOST).

(PLATE 3, FIG. 3.)

_Columba mayeri_ Prévost & Knip, Pigeons II, pl. 60 (1843).

_Columba meyeri_ Schlegel & Pollen, Rech. Faun. Mad. p. 111, pl. 36
(1868).

_Peristera meyeri_ G. R. Gray, Gen. B. III App. p. 24 (1849).

_Carpophaga meyeri_ G. R. Gray, fide Bp. Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).

_Trocaza meyeri_ Bonaparte, Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).

_Trocaza meijeri_ Pollen, N.T.D. I p. 318 (1863).

_Nesoenas mayeri_ Salvadori, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. XXI p. 327
(1893).

The following is the description by Salvadori in the "Catalogue of Birds":--"Head, neck and underparts pale pink, fading into whitish towards the forehead, cheeks and upper throat, and passing into rather darker pink on the mantle; remainder of the upper back and the entire wings brown, with a slight shade of olive and rufous; lower back and rump greyish, the latter mottled with chestnut; upper tail coverts and tail cinnamon, the outer tail feathers fading into buff on the outer webs and towards the tips; undertail-coverts pink, like the mantle; undersurface of the wings ashy brown, slightly pale on the axillaries, and under wing-coverts iris yellow; bill yellow, shaded with red towards the base; legs red (fide Shelley). Total length about 15.5 inches, wing 8.5, tail 6.5, bill 0.86, tarsus 1.3."

In the live bird the pink soon fades away almost entirely, and the olive shade on the wings is strongly developed.

This bird was not found by the Rev. H. H. Slater, during his visit to Mauritius. As observed by Mons. Paul Carié (Ornis XII, p. 127), the idea that it is extinct is, however, incorrect, as it can still easily be procured, though it is rare. M. Georges Antelme, of Mauritius, possesses the eggs of this pigeon. That it still exists is also evident from two specimens which were sent to the Zoological Gardens, London, last year, and are still living there.

Habitat: Mauritius. {166}

NESOENAS DUBOISI SP. NOV.

_Pigeons sauvages d'un rouge roussastre_ Le Sieur D.B., Voyages aux
Iles Dauphine ou Madagascar, etc., p. 171 (1674--Bourbon).

Talking of Wild Pigeons, "Le Sieur D.B." tells us that there were on the island of Bourbon "others of a russet red colour, a little larger than European pigeons, with the beak larger, red at base near the head, the eyes surrounded by a fiery colour, as in the pheasants. At a certain season they are so fat 'qu'on ne leur voit point de croupion;' they taste very good."

This passage cannot be meant for a turtle-dove, but the description of the bill and surrounding of the eyes shows that it refers to a form allied to _Nesoenas mayeri_. The latter, however, is not entirely russet red, but the head, neck, underside and back are creamy white, washed with a greyish-rose colour. Therefore the bird mentioned by Le Sieur D.B. was evidently a representative of N. _mayeri_ or Bourbon. I name it in memory of Monsieur Dubois, who was the author of the Voyages of the "Sieur D.B."

Habitat: Bourbon or Réunion.

{167}

ECTOPISTES SWAINS.

_Ectopistes_ Swainson, Zoological Journal III p. 362 (1827--Partim!
_Columba speciosa_ and _C. migratoria_ mentioned as types, but ten
years later the genus _Ectopistes_ was restricted to _C. migratoria_ by
the same author).

Tail very long and excessively cuneate, the central rectrices sharply pointed. First primary of the wing longest. Tarsus very short, in front half covered with feathers. Now, only the Passenger Pigeon is included in this genus, while formerly the _Zenaidura carolinensis_ auct. used to be associated with it.

ECTOPISTES MACROURA (L.)

PASSENGER PIGEON.

_Columba macroura_ Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X p. 164 (1758--Ex Catesby,
Carolina I p. 23, pl. 23 [1754]. "Habitat in Canada, hybernat in
Carolina." Regarding the necessity of accepting this name see Bangs,
Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington XIX p. 42, and Auk 1906, pp. 474, 475. The
conclusions of Messrs. Bangs and Allen are perfectly correct).

_Columba canadensis_ Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. XII, p. 284 (1766--Ex
Brisson, Orn. I p. 118. Habitat in Canada. Cf. note of Salvadori, Cat.
B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 369).

_Columba migratoria_ Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. XII p. 285 (Ex Frisch,
pl. 142, Kalm., Brisson I, p. 100, Catesby. "Habitat in America
Septentrionali copiosissima ..."); Wilson, Amer. Orn. I p. 102, pl.
XLIX (1808); Temminck & Knip, Pigeons I, seconde fam., pls. 48, 49
(1808-11); Audubon, Orn. Biogr. I, p. 319 (1831); Baird, Brewer &
Ridgway, Hist. N.A.B., Land-Birds III, p. 368, pl. 57, 4 (1874).

_Pigeon de Passage_ Buffon, Hist. Nat. Ois. II, p. 527 (1771).

_Tourterelle du Canada_ Daubenton, Pl. Enl. 176.

_Columba Histrio_ P.L.S. Müller, Natursyst. Suppl. p. 134 (1776--ex
Buffon).

_Columba ventralis_ id., l.c. p. 134 (1776--ex Buffon).

_Ectopistes migratoria_ Swainson, Zool. Journal III, p. 362 (1827);
Gould, B. Europe, pl. 247 (1848); Coues, B. North-West, p. 387 (1874);
Maynard, B. E. North America, p. 335 (1881).

_Trygon migratoria_ Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl., p. 495
(1831).

_Ectopistes migratorius_ G. R. Gray, Gen. B. II, p. 471 (1844);
Brewster, Auk 1889, pp. 286-291; Bendire, Life-History N. Amer. B., p.
132; Salvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 370; Proc. Delaware Valley
Ornith. Club II, p. 17 (1898); A.O.U. Check-List (Ed. II) p. 120, No.
315 (1895); Wintle, B. Montreal, p. 51 (1896); Minot, B. New England,
p. 395 (1895); Auk 1903, p. 66.

_Trygon gregaria_ Brehm, Vogelfang, p. 258 (1855).

It is true that Linnaeus' diagnosis of his _Columba macroura_ is very short, reading, as it does, as follows: "Columba cauda cuneiformi longa, pectore purpurascente." These words, however, are clearly taken from Catesby, who gives an excellent figure and description, as is also the "Habitat," viz.: {168} Habitat in Canada, hybernat in Carolina, though Linnaeus first quotes Edwards 15, pl. 15, where an entirely different bird is described and figured. (Cf. Bangs, l.c.)

The Passenger Pigeon in former times occurred throughout North America in great abundance, from the Atlantic to the great Central Plains, and from the Southern States, where it rarely occurred, north to at least 62° northern latitude. Being a migrant, this bird used to migrate southwards after the breeding season, and to return to their homes in spring, but it also shifted its quarters according to the abundance or scarcity of food, like our Pigeons. Sometimes incredible numbers flocked together. Such stupendous flights have been described independently by Audubon, Wilson and others. In 1813 Audubon says that during his whole journey from Hardensburg to Louisville, fifty-five miles, countless masses of Pigeons continued to pass over, and also did so during the three following days. "At times they flew so low, that multitudes were destroyed, and for many days the entire population seemed to eat nothing else but Pigeons." Where they roosted in millions, the dung soon covered the ground and destroyed the grass and undergrowth, limbs and even small trees broke down from the weight of the birds. "One of the breeding places visited by Wilson, not far from Shelbyville, Kentucky, stretched through the forest in nearly a north and south direction. This was several miles in breadth, and upwards of forty miles in extent. In this immense tract nearly every tree was furnished with nests wherever there were branches to accommodate them. He was informed by those who sought to plunder the nests of the squabs, that the noise in the woods was so great as to terrify their horses, and that it was difficult for one person to hear another speak. The ground was strewed with broken limbs, eggs and young Pigeons. Hawks were sailing about in great numbers, while from twenty feet upwards to the tops of the trees there was a perpetual tumult of crowding and fluttering multitudes of Pigeons, their wings resounding like thunder, and mingled with the frequent crash of falling trees. In one instance he counted ninety nests in a single tree."

It is only natural that man took advantage of such vast multitudes, and that they were killed in great numbers, for food, and, maybe, sometimes wantonly destroyed. Yet it is difficult to understand what brought on their total destruction, as their power of flight was great, and their vision remarkably keen. In 1874 Messrs. Baird, Brewer and Ridgway considered them still common birds, though "their abundance in large extents of the country had {169} been very sensibly reduced." At that time "in the New England States and in the more cultivated part of the country, these birds no longer bred in large communities. The instance near Montpelier, in 1849, is the only marked exception that has come within my knowledge. They now breed in isolated pairs, their nests being scattered through the woods and seldom near one another." In 1895, in the A.O.U. check-list, the authors say: "Breeding range now mainly restricted to portions of the Canadas and the northern borders of the United States, as far west as Manitoba and the Dakotas."

At the present time the Passenger Pigeon seems to have entirely disappeared, a small flock in an aviary apparently being all that is left of it alive. Mr. James H. Fleming, of Toronto, kindly sends me the following notes, which I think are of the greatest interest:--

"The disappearance of the Passenger Pigeon in Ontario dates back at least forty years, though as late as 1870 some of the old roosts were still frequented, but the incredible flocks, of which so much has been said, had gone long before that date, and by 1880 the pigeon was practically exterminated, not only in Ontario, but over the greater part of its old range. There are however occasional records of birds taken, for some years later. An immature bird taken September 9, 1887, in Chester County, Pennsylvania, is said to be the last for that part of the State[4]; a bird, also immature, is in my collection, taken in December, 1888, at Montreal, Quebec. There are other Montreal records of the same date,[5] but with the exception of one taken at Tadousac, July 26, 1889,[6] these are the last Quebec records of birds actually taken. In Ontario two were taken at Toronto in 1890, on September 20, and October 11, both immature females, the latter is in my collection, as is an adult female taken by Mr. Walter Brett, at Riding Mountain, Manatoba, May 12, 1892, one of a pair seen. I also have an adult male taken at Waukegon, Illinois, December 19, 1892. I was in New York in the latter part of November, 1892, and was then assured by Mr. Rowland, a well known taxidermist, that he had recently seen several barrels of pigeons that had been condemned as unfit for food; they had come to New York from Indian Territory, and I believe had had their tails pulled out to permit tighter packing. Mr. William Brewster has recorded the sending of several hundred dozens of pigeons to the Boston market in December of the same year, and in January, 1893; these were also from Indian Territory[7]; these are the last records we have of the Passenger Pigeon as anything more than a casual migrant. The records ceased after this till 1898, when three birds were taken at points widely apart, {170} an adult male at Winnipegosis, Manatoba, on April 14,[8] an immature male at Owensboro, Kentucky, on July 27, now in the Smithsonian Institution, and another immature bird taken at Detroit, Michigan, on September 14, now in my collection; these are the last records that can be based on specimens.

"In 1903 I published a list including sight records, one as late as May, 1902; this latter is possibly open to doubt, but the ones I gave for 1900 are, I feel confident, correct, as the birds were seen more than once and by different observers. For all practical purposes, the close of the Nineteenth Century saw the final extinction of the Passenger Pigeon in a wild state, and there remained only the small flock, numbering in 1903 not more than a dozen, that had been bred in captivity by Prof. C. O. Whitman, of Chicago; these birds are the descendants of a single pair, and have long ago ceased to breed. It was in an effort to obtain fresh blood for this flock that I started a newspaper enquiry that brought many replies, none of which could be substantiated as records of the Passenger Pigeon, and many referred to the Mourning Dove. I am aware that there has been lately wide-spread and persistent rumours of the return of the pigeons, but no rumour has borne investigation, and I feel that Prof. Whitman's small flock, now reduced (in 1906) to five birds, are the last representatives of a species around whose disappearance mystery and fable will always gather."

{171}

FAMILY DIDIDAE. (L.)

Includes very large and massively-built forms, agreeing with the _Columbidae_ in the truncation of the angle of the mandible, but with the extremity of the cranial rostrum strongly hooked. They were totally incapable of flight, the wing-bones being small, the carina of the sternum aborted, and the caracoidal grooves shallow and separated from one another.

Two genera: _Didus_ and _Pezophaps_.

DIDUS LINN.

Skull with a very large and deeply hooked rostrum, and the nasal and maxillary processes of the praemaxilla converging anteriorly; the front region inflated into a sub-conical prominence of cancellous tissue. Neck and feet shorter than in the succeeding genus. Delto-pectoral crest of humerus distinct.

Two species: _Didus cucullatus_ and _Didus solitarius_. {172}

DIDUS CUCULLATUS (L.)

DODO.

(PLATES 24, 24A, 24B, 24C.)

_Walchvoghel_ Van Neck, Voy., p. 7, pl. 2 (1601).

_Walchvögel_ De Bry, Orient. Ind. pt. VIII, t. 11 (1606).

_Gallinaceus gallus peregrinus_ Clusius, Exot. Libr. V p. 99 t. 100
(1605).

_Dod-eersen_ or _Valgh-vogel_ Herbert's travels 1st ed. (1634) t. page
212.

_Cygnus cucullatus_ Nieremberg, Nat p. 231 (with fig. ex. Clus.)
(1635).

_Dronte_ Bontius, Ind. Orient t. p. 70 (1658).

_Raphus_ Moehring, Av. gen. 57 (1752).

_Dodo_ Edwards, Glean. Nat Hist. III p. 179 pl. 296 (1757).

_Struthio cucullatus_ Linn., S. N. I p. 155 No. 4 (1758).

_Didus ineptus_ Linn., S. N. I p. 267 No. 1 (1766).

The first description of this very remarkable bird was given in the account of the voyage of Admiral Jacob van Neck in 1598, which was published by Corneille Nicolas at Amsterdam in 1601. It is as follows:--"Blue parrots are very numerous there, as well as other birds; among which are a kind, conspicuous for their size, larger than our swans, with huge heads only half covered with skin as if clothed with a hood. These birds lack wings, in the place of which 3 or 4 blackish feathers protrude. The tail consists of a few soft incurved feathers, which are ash coloured. These we used to call 'Walghvögel,' for the reason that the longer and oftener they were cooked, the less soft and more insipid eating they became. Nevertheless their belly and breast were of a pleasant flavour and easily masticated."

In a large number of works on travel and voyages published in the 17th and 18th Centuries we find all sorts of notices about the Dodo, and numerous pictures of which I have given outline drawings. From these sources it appears that the Dodo became extinct about the end of the 17th Century, _i.e._, 1680-1690. The causes of the extermination of this, perhaps the best known and most talked about of the recently extinct birds, are not far to seek. The total inability of flight, the heavy slow gait, and the utter fearlessness from long immunity from enemies, led to a continual slaughter for food by the sailors and others who came to and dwelt on Mauritius. But the final cause of the extermination of this and many other birds in the Mascarene Islands was probably the introduction of pigs, and also of the Ceylon Monkey. These animals increased enormously in numbers, ran wild in the woods, and soon destroyed all the eggs and young birds they could find. {173}

It is strange that for many years after great attention had been paid to the _Dodo_, ornithologists differed conspicuously as to what family it and the other two Didine species belonged. Many asserted that it was a Struthious bird, in fact Linnaeus called it calmly _Struthio cucullatus_, while others just as forcibly declared it to be an abnormal Vulture. The truth is, that although the _Didunculus strigirostis_ of Samoa, which was supposed to be its near representative, is not at all closely allied, yet the two species of _Didus_ and _Pezophaps solitarius_ form a group of very specialized pigeons.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE PAINTINGS REPRESENTING THE DODO.

1. _Vienna_, in the Library of the Emperor Francis. By Hufnagel, 1626,
reproduced by von Frauenfeldt in his book, 1868.

2. _Berlin._ "Altes Museum," Cabinet 3, Division 2, No. 710. By
Roelandt Savery, 1626.

3. _Sion House._ Duke of Northumberland. By John Goeimare, 1627.

4. _Vienna._ Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum, formerly Belvedere. By
Roelandt Savery, 1628

5. _London._ Zoological Society, formerly Broderip. By Roelandt
Savery, undated.

6. _Pommersfelden, Bavaria._ Count Schönborn, "Orpheus charming the
Beasts." By Roelandt Savery, undated.

7. _Haag._ Mauritshuis. "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt
Savery.

8. _Stuttgart._ Formerly Dr. Seyffer, but sold at his death and since
disappeared. By Roelandt Savery.

9. _London._ British Museum, formerly belonging to G. Edwards.
Probably by Roelandt Savery.

10. _Emden._ Galerie der Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst. "Orpheus
charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery.

11. _Oxford._ Ashmolean Museum. By John Savery, 1651.

12. _Haarlem._ Dr. A. van der Willigen, Pz. By Pieter Holsteyn
(1580-1662), not dated.

13. _Dresden._ Kgl. Gemälde-Galerie. "Circe and Ulysses." By C.
Ruthart, 1666.

14. _Dresden._ Kgl. Gemälde-Galerie. "The Creation of the Animals."
Supposed to be by Franz Francken (1581-1642), no date, and said to be
by a different artist.

At least 2 _Mauritius Dodos_ have been exhibited alive in Europe, one brought back by Van Neck in 1599, and which most likely served as the model for nearly all Roelandt Savery's pictures, and one exhibited in London in the year 1638, mentioned by Sir Hamon Lestrange. This is almost certainly the bird afterwards preserved in Tradescant's Museum (1656), and finally in Oxford (Ashmolean Museum), and probably served for the model of the supposed Savery picture in the British Museum.

The Dodo inhabited Mauritius.

NOTE.--_Didus nazarenus_ Gmelin, based on the "Oiseau de Nazareth" of
Cauche (Descr. de l'ile de Madagascar, p. 130, ff, 1651) is evidently
founded on a mistaken and partly fictitious description of a Dodo, or
rather a mixture of that of the Dodo and a Cassowary. The name was,
perhaps, also a mistake, derived from that of "_Oiseau de nausée_,"
which has a similar meaning as "Walghvogel."

{174}

Explanation of Plates of Dodo.

_Plate 24._

This was taken from the picture by Roelandt Savery in Berlin, but the
wings, tail and bill have been altered, partly from Pierre Witthoos'
picture of the Bourbon Dodo, and partly from anatomical examination.
The tail, however, appears to have been curled over the back in life,
according to most authors.

_Plate 24 (a)._

_Fig. 1._ Reproduction in outline of the Dodo in Savery's Orpheus at
Haag. Vide antea No. 7 in the List of Paintings.

_Fig. 2._ Outline of Dodo (and Pelican?) in Ruthart's "Circe and
Ulysses" at Dresden. Vide antea No. 13 in the List of Paintings.

_Fig. 3._ Outline of Dodo (and Pelican?) in Frans Franckens (?) picture
in Dresden. Vide antea No. 14 in the List of Paintings.

_Plates 24 (b and c)._

_No. 1._ Outline of Dodo in Roelandt Savery's picture at Berlin. Vide
antea No. 2 in the List of Paintings.

_No. 2._ Outline of picture by Roelandt Savery in the British Museum.
Vide antea No. 9 in the List of Paintings.

_No. 3._ Outline of Dodo in Jacob van Neck's Voyage, Plate 2 (1598).

_No. 4._ Outline of Roelandt Savery's Dodo, Vienna. Vide antea No. 4 in
the List of Paintings.

_No. 5._ Outline of Dodo in Broeck's Voyage (Peter van Broeck's Voyage,
1617).

_No. 6._ Outline of Dodo in Piso's additions to Jacob Bontiu's Oriental
Natural History, 1658.

_No. 7._ Outline of Dodo in Sir Thomas Herbert's Relation of some
yeares Travels, 1626.

_No. 8._ Outline of Dodo in Clusius Exoticorum libri decem, 1605.

_No. 9._ Outline of Dodo in Joan Nievhof's Gedenkwaerdige Zee and
Lantreize, 1682.

_No. 10._ Outline of Dodo in John Goeimare's picture at Sion House,
1627. Vide antea No. 3 in the List of Paintings.

_No. 11._ Outline of Dodo in Roelandt Savery's picture at
Pommersfelden. Vide antea No. 6 in the List of Paintings.

_No. 12._ Outline of Dr. H. Schlegel's restoration of the Dodo in
Transactions, &c., of the Amsterdam Academy, vol. 2, 1854.

_No. 13._ Outline of Dodo in Roelandt Savery's picture, Zoological
Society, London. Vide antea No. 5 in the List of Paintings.

{175}

DIDUS SOLITARIUS (SELYS).

RÉUNION DODO.

(PLATES 25, 25A, 25B.)

_Great Fowl_ Tatton, Voy. Castleton, Purchas his Pilgrimes, ed. (1625)
I p. 331 (Bourbon or Réunion).

_Dod-eersen_ Bontekoe, Journ. ofte gedenck. beschr. van de Ost. Ind.
Reyse Haarlem (1646) p. 6.

_Oiseau Solitaire_ Carré, Voy. Ind. Or. I p. 12 (1699).

_Solitaire_ Voy. fait par Le Sieur D.B. (1674) p. 170.

_Apterornis solitarius_ de Selys, Rev. Zool (1848) p. 293.

_Didus apterornis_ Schlegel, Ook een Wordje over den Dodo p. 15 f. 2
(1854).

_Pezophaps borbonica_ Bp., Consp. Av. II p. 2 (1854).

_Ornithaptera borbonica_ Bp., Consp. Av. II. p. 2 (1854).

_Didine Bird of the Island of Bourbon_ (_Réunion_) A. Newt. Tr. Zool.
Soc. VI pp. 373-376, pl. 62 (1867).

_Apterornis solitaria_ Milne-Edw., Ibis (1869) p. 272.

_? Didus borbonica_ Schleg., Mus. P.B. Struthiones p. 3 (1873).

_Solitaire of Réunion_ A. Newton, Enc. Brit. II p. 732 (1875).

The Didine bird of Réunion was first mentioned by Mr. Tatton, the Chief Officer of Captain Castleton, in his account of their voyage given in Purchas his Pilgrimes. His account is as follows:--

"There is store of land fowle both small and great, plenty of Doves, great Parrats, and such like; and a great fowle of the bignesse of a Turkie, very fat, and so short winged, that they cannot fly, being white, and in a manner tame: and so be all other fowles, as having not been troubled nor feared with shot. Our men did beat them down with sticks and stones. Ten men may take fowle enough to serve fortie men a day."

We then find frequent mention of this bird by Bontekoe in 5 separate treatises or editions, from 1646 to 1650, and by Carré in 1699. But the first more detailed description is given by the Sieur D.B. (Dubois) in 1674, which is as follows:--

"_Solitaires._ These birds are thus named because they always go alone. They are as big as a big goose and have white plumage, black at the extremity of the wings and of the tail. At the tail there are some feathers resembling those of the Ostrich. They have the neck long and the beak formed like that of the Woodcocks (he refers to the woodrails, _Erythromachus_--W.R.), but larger, and the legs and feet like those of Turkey-chicks. This bird betakes itself to running, only flying but very little. It is the best game on the Island." {176}

It will be seen that, while Dubois says the wings and tail are black, Pierre Witthoos's picture, from which the accompanying plate was partly drawn, shows the wings yellow. This may either be due to Dubois' faulty description, or, what is much more probable, the bird brought to Amsterdam, which Witthoos painted, was somewhat albinistic. The bill in the picture by Witthoos shows a distinctly mutilated bill, evidently done by the bird's keeper to prevent being injured by the formidable hook of the untrimmed bill. In addition to two pictures (the one formerly in the possession of Mr. C. Dare, of Clatterford, in the Isle of Wight, and a second in Holland, both by Pieter Witthoos, painted about the year 1670), we know of this bird only the drawing given in Zaagman's edition of Bontekoe, 1646. In all these drawings the first four primaries point down and forward, which is probably owing to the injured condition of the specimen figured, so in the accompanying plate I had the wing drawn like the true Dodo's and the bill reconstructed.

Habitat: Island of Bourbon or Réunion.

Only known from the above-mentioned descriptions and two drawings. No specimens existing.

This bird became extinct between the years 1735 and 1801, because in the latter year Monsieur Bory St. Vincent made his scientific survey of the Island, and no such bird existed then; while we know that Monsieur de la Bourdonnaye, who was governor of the Mascarene Islands from 1735 to 1746, sent one alive to one of the directors of the French East Indian Company. Of this, the second living specimen brought to Europe, we unfortunately have neither drawing nor history.

Explanation of Plates.

_Plate 25._

Drawing of White Dodo from Pierre Witthoos' picture, the bill and tail
being reconstructed from the model of the common Dodo.

_Plate 25 (a)._

_Fig. 5._ Outline of figure of White Dodo in the picture by Pieter
Witthoos circa 1670 vide supra.

_Fig. 8._ Outline of Woodcut in Zaagman's edition of Bontekoe van
Hoorn, 1646.

_Fig. 7._ Outline of figure of White Dodo in an edition of Plinius
Secundus about 1643 but without date.

_Fig. 4._ Outline of Dr. H. Schlegel's reconstruction of the Réunion
Dodo.

_Plate 25 (b)._

Drawing from description of the Sieur D.B. (Dubois), 1674.

{177}

PEZOPHAPS STRICKLAND & MELVILLE.

Skull with a moderate rostrum, slightly hooked, and the nasal and maxillary processes of the praemaxillae diverging anteriorly; the frontal region flat with but little cancellous tissue. Coracoid stout. Manus armed with an ossified tuberosity. Neck and feet long. Delto-pectoral crest of humerus aborted.

This genus connects _Didus_ with the _Columbidae_. The male is much larger than the female.

PEZOPHAPS SOLITARIUS (GM.)

THE SOLITAIRE.

(PLATE 23, 25A, FIGS. 1, 2, 3.)

_Solitaire_ Leguat, Voy. deux iles désertes Ind. Or. I pp. 98. 102
(1708).

_Didus solitarius_ Gmelin, S. N. I p. 728, n. 2 (1788).

_Pezophaps solitaria_ Strickland, the Dodo, &c., p. 46 (1848).

_Didus nazarenus_ Bartl. (nec. Gmel.), P. Z. S. 1851, p. 284, pl. XLV.

_Pezophaps minor_ Strickland, Contr. to Orn. 1852, p. 19 (?).