Chapter 6

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.

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.

Pigeon hollandaisSonnerat, Voy. Ind. Orient. II, p. 175, pl. 101 (1782).Hackled PigeonLatham, Syn. B. II, 2, p. 641, No. 36 (1783).Columba nitidissimaScopoli, Del. Flor. and Faun. Insubr. II, p. 93, No. 89 (1786) (ex Sonnerat).Columba franciaeGmelin, Syst. Nat. I, 2, p. 779, No. 51 (1788). (ex Sonnerat).Columba botanicaBonnaterre, Enc. Méth. I, p. 233 (1790).Ramier périsséLevaillant, Ois. d'Afr. VI, p. 74, pl. 267 (1808).Columba jubataWagler, Syst. Av.,Columba, sp. 22 (1827).Alectroenas nitidissimaG. R. Gray, List Gen. B., p. 58 (1840).Alectroenas franciaeReichenbach, Syn. Av.,Columbariae, p. 2, f. 1302 (1847).Columbigallus franciaeDes Murs, Encycl. d'Hist. Nat., Ois. VI., p. 31, (1854?).Ptilopus nitidissimusSchlegel and Pollen, Rech. Faun. Madag., p. 159 (1868).Alectroenas nitidissimusG. R. Gray, Hand-list II, p. 228, No. 9164 (1870).Alectoroenas nitidissimusA. Newton, P. Z. S. 1879, pp. 2-4.

Pigeon hollandaisSonnerat, Voy. Ind. Orient. II, p. 175, pl. 101 (1782).

Hackled PigeonLatham, Syn. B. II, 2, p. 641, No. 36 (1783).

Columba nitidissimaScopoli, Del. Flor. and Faun. Insubr. II, p. 93, No. 89 (1786) (ex Sonnerat).

Columba franciaeGmelin, Syst. Nat. I, 2, p. 779, No. 51 (1788). (ex Sonnerat).

Columba botanicaBonnaterre, Enc. Méth. I, p. 233 (1790).

Ramier périsséLevaillant, Ois. d'Afr. VI, p. 74, pl. 267 (1808).

Columba jubataWagler, Syst. Av.,Columba, sp. 22 (1827).

Alectroenas nitidissimaG. R. Gray, List Gen. B., p. 58 (1840).

Alectroenas franciaeReichenbach, Syn. Av.,Columbariae, p. 2, f. 1302 (1847).

Columbigallus franciaeDes Murs, Encycl. d'Hist. Nat., Ois. VI., p. 31, (1854?).

Ptilopus nitidissimusSchlegel and Pollen, Rech. Faun. Madag., p. 159 (1868).

Alectroenas nitidissimusG. R. Gray, Hand-list II, p. 228, No. 9164 (1870).

Alectoroenas nitidissimusA. Newton, P. Z. S. 1879, pp. 2-4.

Sonnerat'soriginal 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.

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

Theoriginal description of the sternum is asfollows:—"It belongs to a species small in size, barely as large asT. 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 fromErythroenaandTurtur, but also fromVinago. 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 genusCarpophaga, 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 ofColumbidaein 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 callColumba rodericana." (Translated.)

It is probable that Milne-Edwards'sC. rodericanabelonged to the genusAlectroenas, and was the representative on Rodriguez of theAlectroenas nitidissimaof Mauritius. 1 humerus in the Tring Museum.

Habitat: Rodriguez.

Solesnormal, 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.

Columba mayeriPrévost & Knip, Pigeons II, pl. 60 (1843).Columba meyeriSchlegel & Pollen, Rech. Faun. Mad. p. 111, pl. 36 (1868).Peristera meyeriG. R. Gray, Gen. B. III App. p. 24 (1849).Carpophaga meyeriG. R. Gray, fide Bp. Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).Trocaza meyeriBonaparte, Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).Trocaza meijeriPollen, N.T.D. I p. 318 (1863).Nesoenas mayeriSalvadori, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. XXI p. 327 (1893).

Columba mayeriPrévost & Knip, Pigeons II, pl. 60 (1843).

Columba meyeriSchlegel & Pollen, Rech. Faun. Mad. p. 111, pl. 36 (1868).

Peristera meyeriG. R. Gray, Gen. B. III App. p. 24 (1849).

Carpophaga meyeriG. R. Gray, fide Bp. Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).

Trocaza meyeriBonaparte, Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).

Trocaza meijeriPollen, N.T.D. I p. 318 (1863).

Nesoenas mayeriSalvadori, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. XXI p. 327 (1893).

Thefollowing 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.

Pigeons sauvages d'un rouge roussastreLe Sieur D.B., Voyages aux Iles Dauphine ou Madagascar, etc., p. 171 (1674—Bourbon).

Talkingof 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 toNesoenas 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.mayerior 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.

EctopistesSwainson, Zoological Journal III p. 362 (1827—Partim!Columba speciosaandC. migratoriamentioned as types, but ten years later the genusEctopisteswas restricted toC. migratoriaby the same author).

Tailvery 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 theZenaidura carolinensisauct. used to be associated with it.

Columba macrouraLinnaeus, 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 canadensisLinnaeus, 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 migratoriaLinnaeus, 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 PassageBuffon, Hist. Nat. Ois. II, p. 527 (1771).Tourterelle du CanadaDaubenton, Pl. Enl. 176.Columba HistrioP.L.S. Müller, Natursyst. Suppl. p. 134 (1776—ex Buffon).Columba ventralisid., l.c. p. 134 (1776—ex Buffon).Ectopistes migratoriaSwainson, 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 migratoriaBrehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl., p. 495 (1831).Ectopistes migratoriusG. 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 gregariaBrehm, Vogelfang, p. 258 (1855).

Columba canadensisLinnaeus, 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 migratoriaLinnaeus, 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 PassageBuffon, Hist. Nat. Ois. II, p. 527 (1771).

Tourterelle du CanadaDaubenton, Pl. Enl. 176.

Columba HistrioP.L.S. Müller, Natursyst. Suppl. p. 134 (1776—ex Buffon).

Columba ventralisid., l.c. p. 134 (1776—ex Buffon).

Ectopistes migratoriaSwainson, 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 migratoriaBrehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl., p. 495 (1831).

Ectopistes migratoriusG. 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 gregariaBrehm, Vogelfang, p. 258 (1855).

Itis true that Linnaeus' diagnosis of hisColumba macrourais 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.: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 hadbeen 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 greatestinterest:—

"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,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."

Includesvery large and massively-built forms, agreeing with theColumbidaein 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:DidusandPezophaps.

Skullwith 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 cucullatusandDidus solitarius.

WalchvoghelVan Neck, Voy., p. 7, pl. 2 (1601).WalchvögelDe Bry, Orient. Ind. pt. VIII, t. 11 (1606).Gallinaceus gallus peregrinusClusius, Exot. Libr. V p. 99 t. 100 (1605).Dod-eersenorValgh-vogelHerbert's travels 1st ed. (1634) t. page 212.Cygnus cucullatusNieremberg, Nat p. 231 (with fig. ex. Clus.) (1635).DronteBontius, Ind. Orient t. p. 70 (1658).RaphusMoehring, Av. gen. 57 (1752).DodoEdwards, Glean. Nat Hist. III p. 179 pl. 296 (1757).Struthio cucullatusLinn., S. N. I p. 155 No. 4 (1758).Didus ineptusLinn., S. N. I p. 267 No. 1 (1766).

WalchvoghelVan Neck, Voy., p. 7, pl. 2 (1601).

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

Gallinaceus gallus peregrinusClusius, Exot. Libr. V p. 99 t. 100 (1605).

Dod-eersenorValgh-vogelHerbert's travels 1st ed. (1634) t. page 212.

Cygnus cucullatusNieremberg, Nat p. 231 (with fig. ex. Clus.) (1635).

DronteBontius, Ind. Orient t. p. 70 (1658).

RaphusMoehring, Av. gen. 57 (1752).

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

Struthio cucullatusLinn., S. N. I p. 155 No. 4 (1758).

Didus ineptusLinn., S. N. I p. 267 No. 1 (1766).

Thefirst 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 asfollows:—"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.

It is strange that for many years after great attention had been paid to theDodo, 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 calmlyStruthio cucullatus, while others just as forcibly declared it to be an abnormal Vulture. The truth is, that although theDidunculus strigirostisof Samoa, which was supposed to be its near representative, is not at all closely allied, yet the two species ofDidusandPezophaps solitariusform a group of very specialized pigeons.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE PAINTINGS REPRESENTING THE DODO.01.Vienna, in the Library of the Emperor Francis. By Hufnagel, 1626, reproduced by von Frauenfeldt in his book, 1868.02.Berlin."Altes Museum," Cabinet 3, Division 2, No. 710. By Roelandt Savery, 1626.03.Sion House.Duke of Northumberland. By John Goeimare, 1627.04.Vienna.Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum, formerly Belvedere. By Roelandt Savery, 162805.London.Zoological Society, formerly Broderip. By Roelandt Savery, undated.06.Pommersfelden, Bavaria.Count Schönborn, "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery, undated.07.Haag.Mauritshuis. "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery.08.Stuttgart.Formerly Dr. Seyffer, but sold at his death and since disappeared. By Roelandt Savery.09.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.

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

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

02.Berlin."Altes Museum," Cabinet 3, Division 2, No. 710. By Roelandt Savery, 1626.

03.Sion House.Duke of Northumberland. By John Goeimare, 1627.

04.Vienna.Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum, formerly Belvedere. By Roelandt Savery, 1628

05.London.Zoological Society, formerly Broderip. By Roelandt Savery, undated.

06.Pommersfelden, Bavaria.Count Schönborn, "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery, undated.

07.Haag.Mauritshuis. "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery.

08.Stuttgart.Formerly Dr. Seyffer, but sold at his death and since disappeared. By Roelandt Savery.

09.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 2Mauritius Dodoshave 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 nazarenusGmelin, 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."

Plate24.

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.

Plate24 (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.

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 (bandc).

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.

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.

Great FowlTatton, Voy. Castleton, Purchas his Pilgrimes, ed. (1625) I p. 331 (Bourbon or Réunion).Dod-eersenBontekoe, Journ. ofte gedenck. beschr. van de Ost. Ind. Reyse Haarlem (1646) p. 6.Oiseau SolitaireCarré, Voy. Ind. Or. I p. 12 (1699).SolitaireVoy. fait par Le Sieur D.B. (1674) p. 170.Apterornis solitariusde Selys, Rev. Zool (1848) p. 293.Didus apterornisSchlegel, Ook een Wordje over den Dodo p. 15 f. 2 (1854).Pezophaps borbonicaBp., Consp. Av. II p. 2 (1854).Ornithaptera borbonicaBp., 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 solitariaMilne-Edw., Ibis (1869) p. 272.? Didus borbonicaSchleg., Mus. P.B. Struthiones p. 3 (1873).Solitaire of RéunionA. Newton, Enc. Brit. II p. 732 (1875).

Great FowlTatton, Voy. Castleton, Purchas his Pilgrimes, ed. (1625) I p. 331 (Bourbon or Réunion).

Dod-eersenBontekoe, Journ. ofte gedenck. beschr. van de Ost. Ind. Reyse Haarlem (1646) p. 6.

Oiseau SolitaireCarré, Voy. Ind. Or. I p. 12 (1699).

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

Apterornis solitariusde Selys, Rev. Zool (1848) p. 293.

Didus apterornisSchlegel, Ook een Wordje over den Dodo p. 15 f. 2 (1854).

Pezophaps borbonicaBp., Consp. Av. II p. 2 (1854).

Ornithaptera borbonicaBp., 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 solitariaMilne-Edw., Ibis (1869) p. 272.

? Didus borbonicaSchleg., Mus. P.B. Struthiones p. 3 (1873).

Solitaire of RéunionA. Newton, Enc. Brit. II p. 732 (1875).

TheDidine 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 asfollows:—

"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 asfollows:—

"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."

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.

Plate25.

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

Plate25 (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.

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.

Plate25 (b).

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

Skullwith 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 connectsDiduswith theColumbidae. The male is much larger than the female.

SolitaireLeguat, Voy. deux iles désertes Ind. Or. I pp. 98. 102 (1708).Didus solitariusGmelin, S. N. I p. 728, n. 2 (1788).Pezophaps solitariaStrickland, the Dodo, &c., p. 46 (1848).Didus nazarenusBartl. (nec. Gmel.), P. Z. S. 1851, p. 284, pl. XLV.Pezophaps minorStrickland, Contr. to Orn. 1852, p. 19 (?).

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

Didus solitariusGmelin, S. N. I p. 728, n. 2 (1788).

Pezophaps solitariaStrickland, the Dodo, &c., p. 46 (1848).

Didus nazarenusBartl. (nec. Gmel.), P. Z. S. 1851, p. 284, pl. XLV.

Pezophaps minorStrickland, Contr. to Orn. 1852, p. 19 (?).

Thisbird was first made known by Leguat in 1708, but some confusion seems to have arisen, owing to his applying the same name to them as the Sieur D.B. (Dubois) gave to the Bourbon Dodo in 1674. This is the originaldescription:—

"The feathers of the males are of a brown-grey colour, the feet and beak are like a turkey's, but a little more crooked. They have scarce any tail, but their hind part covered with feathers is roundish, like the crupper of a hare. They are taller than turkeys. Their neck is straight, and a little longer in proportion than a turkey's when it lifts up his head. Its eye is black and lively, and its head without comb on cop. They never fly, their wings are too little to support the weight of their bodies; they serve only to beat themselves and flutter when they call one another. They will whirl about for twenty or thirty times together on the same side during the space of 4 or 5 minutes. The motions of their wings make then a noise very like that of a rattle, and one may hear it two hundred paces off. The bone of theirwings grows greater towards the extremity, and forms a little round mass under the feathers as big as a musket ball. That and its beak are the chief defences of this bird. 'Tis very hard to catch in the woods, but easy in open places, because we run faster than they, and sometimes we approach them without much trouble. From March to September they are very fat, and taste admirably well, especially while they are young, some of the males weigh 45 pounds. The females are wonderfully beautiful, some fair, some brown. I call them fair, because they are the colour of fair hair; they have a sort of peak like a widow's, upon their breasts, which is of a dun colour. No one feather is straggling from the other all over their bodies, they being very careful to adjust themselves, and make them all even with their beaks. The feathers on their thighs are round like shells at the end, and being there very thick, have an agreeable effect. They have two risings on their craws, and the feathers are whiter there than the rest, which livelily represents the fine neck of a beautiful woman. They walk with so much stateliness and good grace that one cannot help admiring them and loving them, by which means their fine mien often saves their lives."

The unfortunate Solitaires, owing to the depredations by the pigs and monkeys introduced by the settlers, and the unceasing slaughter by the latter, became extinct between the years 1760 and 1780.

Of their habits we only have the accounts ofLeguat:—

"Though these birds will sometimes very familiarly come up near enough to one, when we do not run after them, yet they will never grow tame, as soon as they are caught they shed tears, without crying, and refuse all manner of sustenance till they die.

When these birds build their nests, they choose a clean place, gather together some palm leaves for that purpose, and heap them up a foot and a half high from the ground, on which they sit. They never lay but one egg, which is much bigger than that of a goose. The male and female both cover it in their turns, and the young is not hatched till at 7 weeks end. All the while they are sitting upon it, or are bringing up their young one, which is not able to provide for itself in several months, they will not suffer any other bird of their species to come within two hundred yards round of the place. But what is very singular is, the males will never drive away the females, only when they perceive one they make a noise with their wings to call their own female—she drives away the unwelcome stranger, not leaving it till it was without her bounds. The female does the same as to males, which she leaves to the male who drives them away. We have observed this several times, and Iaffirm it to be true. The combats between them on this occasion last sometimes pretty long, because the stranger only turns about, and does not fly directly from the nest. However, the others do not forsake it till they have quite driven it out of their limits. After these birds have raised their young one, and left it to itself, they are always together, which the other birds are not, and though they happen to mingle with other birds of the same species, these two companions never disunite.

We have often remarked, that some days after the young one leaves the nest, a company of 30 or 40 bring another young one to it, and the new fledged bird, joining the band with its father and mother, they march to some bye place. We frequently followed them, and found that afterwards the old ones went each their way alone, or in couples, and left the two young ones together, which we called a marriage."

Leguat's, d'Heguerty's, and the Abbé Pingré's descriptions were all we had of this great ground pigeon down to 1866, except a few bones. When Mr. Strickland proved its distinctness from the Dodo of Mauritius in 1844, and up to 1852, these bones numbered 18. In 1864 Mr. E. Newton and Captain Barclay got 3 more bones, in 1865 Mr. Jenner, the resident magistrate, collected 8 bones, and in 1866 nearly 2,000 bones were collected, but during the Transit of Venus expedition in 1874, a thorough search was made, and a number of complete skeletons was collected.

Habitat: Island of Rodriguez.

Represented in Museums by a number of complete skeletons and a large number of bones.

Plate23.

Coloured drawing made from Leguat's description and figure.

Plate25 (a).

Fig. 1.Outline of figure in Leguat's Voyage, 1708.Fig. 2.Outline of Schlegel's reconstructed figure of the Solitaire, 1854.Fig. 3.Outline of Solitaire in Frontispiece to Leguat's Voyage, 1708.

Fig. 1.Outline of figure in Leguat's Voyage, 1708.

Fig. 2.Outline of Schlegel's reconstructed figure of the Solitaire, 1854.

Fig. 3.Outline of Solitaire in Frontispiece to Leguat's Voyage, 1708.

Tetrao cupidoLinnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X, p. 160 (1758—ex Catesby, Carolina II, App. p. 1, pl. 1, 1743. "Habitat in Virginia"); Vieillot, Gal. Ois. II, p. 55, p. 219 (1825).Pinnated GrouseLatham, Gen. Syn. II, 2, p. 740 (1783).Bonasa cupidoStephens, in Shaw's Gen. Zool. XI, p. 299 (1819—New Jersey and Long Island).Cupidonia cupidoBaird, B. N. Am. p. 628 (1860—partim); Maynard, B. E. Massach. p. 138 (1870—Martha's Vineyard and Naushon Island); Brewster, Auk 1885, p. 82 (Massachusetts).Cupidonia cupido var. cupidoBaird, Brewer & Ridgway, N. Amer. B. III, p. 440 (1874).Cupidonia cupido brewsteriCoues, Key N.A.B., App. p. 884 (1887).Tympanuchus cupidoRidgway, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. VIII, p. 355 (1885); Bendire, Life-Hist. N. Amer. B. I, p. 93 (1892); Grant, Cat. B. Brit. B. XXII, p. 77; Check-List N. Amer. B. Ed. II, p. 115, No. 306 (1895); Hartlaub, Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen XIV, 1 (second ed. of separate copy, p. 15) (1896).

Tetrao cupidoLinnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X, p. 160 (1758—ex Catesby, Carolina II, App. p. 1, pl. 1, 1743. "Habitat in Virginia"); Vieillot, Gal. Ois. II, p. 55, p. 219 (1825).

Pinnated GrouseLatham, Gen. Syn. II, 2, p. 740 (1783).

Bonasa cupidoStephens, in Shaw's Gen. Zool. XI, p. 299 (1819—New Jersey and Long Island).

Cupidonia cupidoBaird, B. N. Am. p. 628 (1860—partim); Maynard, B. E. Massach. p. 138 (1870—Martha's Vineyard and Naushon Island); Brewster, Auk 1885, p. 82 (Massachusetts).

Cupidonia cupido var. cupidoBaird, Brewer & Ridgway, N. Amer. B. III, p. 440 (1874).

Cupidonia cupido brewsteriCoues, Key N.A.B., App. p. 884 (1887).

Tympanuchus cupidoRidgway, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. VIII, p. 355 (1885); Bendire, Life-Hist. N. Amer. B. I, p. 93 (1892); Grant, Cat. B. Brit. B. XXII, p. 77; Check-List N. Amer. B. Ed. II, p. 115, No. 306 (1895); Hartlaub, Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen XIV, 1 (second ed. of separate copy, p. 15) (1896).

Linnaeus'brief diagnosis is: "Tetrao pedibus hirsutis alis succenturiatis cervicalibus." After the habitat he adds: "Color Tetricis feminae; vertex subcristatus; a tergo colli duae parvae alae: singulae pennis quinque." This diagnosis is taken from Catesby, who gives a fairly good description and a recognizable coloured plate. He specially mentions that the neck-tufts are composed of five feathers, and in his figure they are shown to be much pointed. Catesby expressly states that he does not know exactly from which part of America his specimen came—yet Linnaeus says "Habitat in Virginia."

Formerly the Heath Hen inhabited New England and part of the Middle States (Southern Connecticut, Long Island, New Jersey, Nantucket, Eastern Pennsylvania), but in 1887 Ridgway stated already that it was then apparently extinct, except on Martha's Vineyard. About that time it was still common on that island, inhabiting the woods and chiefly haunting oak scrub and feeding on acorns. They were then "strictly protected by law," but this protection seems not to have been effectual, as from 1893 to 1897 a number were killed, skinned, and sold to various museums. This was, perhaps, fortunate rather than unfortunate, because Mr. Hoyle (the man who collected them) told us that in 1894 a fire destroyed many of them, and in the fall of 1897 they were practically gone. But almost worse than this, perhaps, two pairs of "Prairie Chicken" (Tympanuchus americanus) were liberated and broods of young (of the latter apparently) were seen, so that itis to be feared that birds shot now on Martha's Vineyards Island may have blood ofT. americanusin them, the two forms being closely related, somewhat difficult to distinguish, and evidently sub-species of each other. Nevertheless, a bird taken in 1901 was pronounced to be typicalcupidoby Mr. Brewster.

From these facts it is pretty clear that the Heath Hen is among the birds the fate of which is sealed, and which, if not already exterminated or mixed with foreign blood, will soon have disappeared. The footnote in the Proceedings of the IV. International Ornithological Congress, p. 203, is herewith corrected.

Coturnix Novae-ZelandiaeQuoy and Gaimard, Voy. Astrolabe, Zool. I. p. 242, pl. 24, fig. 1 (1830—"Il habit la baie Chouraki (rivière Tamise de Cook), à la Nouvelle-Zélande"); Gould, Syn. B. Austr., text and pl. fig 2 (1837-38); Buller, B. New Zealand, p. 161, pl. (1873); Hist. B. New Zealand, 2nd ed. I, p. 225, pl. XXIII (1888); Grant, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXII p. 245 (1893).

ThisQuail, though a typicalCoturnix, is easily distinguished from all other species. The male has the upper-side almost black, each feather bordered and indistinctly barred with rufous-brown, and with a wide, creamy white shaft-line. The throat and sides of the head are rufous-cinnamon, the feathers of the chest and breast at their basal half buff with a broken black cross-bar, the distal half black, with two pale buff spots near the tip, or with a continuous white border.

This sole representative of the "gamebirds" in New Zealand was in former days very numerous in both islands, but especially so in the South Island, wherever there was open grass-land, but is now evidently extinct. Its disappearance is apparently not due to excessive shooting, but rather to the introduction of rats, cats, and dogs, and last, but not least, to bush-fires and to the regular burning of the sheep-runs, according to Sir Walter Buller. No doubt the establishment itself of extensive sheep-farms in the once, more or less, uninhabited grass-land was ominous for the future of the Quail.

It is not quite clear when the Quail disappeared. The last on the North Island was shot by Captain Mair at Whangarei in 1860. Specimens were recorded in 1867 and 1869, but were apparently not procured. In Haast's "Journal of Exploration in the Nelson Province" it is said to be still very abundant in 1861 on the grassy plains of the interior.

Sir Walter Buller mentions two specimens said to be from an island in Blue Skin Bay, shot in "1867 or 1868." In his Second Edition of the Birds of New Zealand he informs us that it was found occasionally in the South Island down to 1875, but in the "Supplement" he speaks of a specimen said to have been shot in 1871, but adds, "There is no absolute evidence of it," and "if true, this individual bird must have been about the last of its race." Therefore, evidently the note about 1875 was erroneous.

The statement of Mr. Cheeseman, that he took eggs on Three Kings Islands is erroneous. The eggs belonged to aSynoecus, and the egg given to Sir Walter Buller is now in my collection.

I have, however, also two eggs ofCoturnix novaezealandiae, brought home by Dr. H. O. Forbes. They have a brownish-white shell, covered and washed all over with deep brown patches and lighter brown underlying markings. They show distinctly the character of Quails' eggs, but, besides being much larger, are easily distinguished from eggs ofCoturnix coturnix. They measure 34.3 by 25 and 34.5 by 21.3 mm.

Of birds I have in my collection: One ♂ ad. Shot at Whangarei, North Island, by Major Mair, in 1860. (This is the specimen figured in the Second Edition of the "Birds of New Zealand." I bought it with Sir Walter Buller's collection eighteen years ago. By a curiouslapsus memoriaeSir Walter Buller, in the "Supplement," p. 35, in 1905, states that this bird was in his son's collection.) One ♀ ad. and one ♂ in the first year's plumage, shot by Messrs. Walter Buller and E. French near Kaiapoi, South Island, in the summer of 1859.

Seven specimens are in the British Museum, the types in Paris, three in Cambridge, a pair in Christchurch in New Zealand, some in the Canterbury Museum, and doubtless many others, most of which have never been recorded.

Thefirst announcement of the former existence of large Struthious birds in New Zealand was made by Mr. J. S. Polack in 1838. In his bookNew Zealand, he states that he found large bird bones near East Cape in the North Island. The first specimen, however, that came into the hands of a scientific man was the bone sent to Professor Owen in 1839 by Mr. Rule, who reported that the natives had told him that it was the bone of a large Eagle which they called "Movie." Professor Owen, with his extraordinary knowledge, at once saw that far from any connection with theRaptores, Mr. Rule's bone was a portion of a femur of a gigantic Struthious bird. He described it on November 12th, 1839, at a meeting of the Zoological Society, and it was figured on Plate 3 of Volume III of the Transactions of the Zoological Society.

The next notice of the Moas takes the form of a letter, received by Professor Owen from the Rev. W. C. Cotton, dated Waimate, near the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, July 11th, 1842; and in it the writer gives an account of his meeting with the Rev. Mr. Wm. Williams, a fellow missionary at East Cape. The latter had collected a lot of "Moa" bones and sent them to a Dr. Buckland. Mr. Williams also reported a conversation with two Englishmen, who declared they had been taken out by a native at night and had seen a Moa alive, but had been too frightened to shoot it.

On January 24th, 1843, Professor Owen exhibited a number of bones from Mr. Williams' collection, and described them, giving the bird the name of "Megalornis novaezealandiae," afterwards changing the generic title intoDinornis, asMegalorniswas preoccupied. Afterwards, when describing these bones and those contained in the second box of Mr. Williams' collection more fully, he somewhat inconsistently changed the specific name tostruthioides, which Captain Hutton, in his later classification, retained. Following the laws of priority, however (novaezealandiaehas 10 months' priority overstruthioides), we must reinstate the namenovaezealandiae.

A number of other finds occurred between 1842 and 1847, but by far the largest and most important collections were made and sent home between 1847 and 1852 by the Hon. W. Mantell, who sent to Professor Owen many hundreds of bones and eggshells, from which the Professor was enabled to determine and describe a large number of species, and even as early as this to separate some genera.

The bulk of later finds were made by Sir Julius von Haast, Captain Hutton, and Mr. Aug. Hamilton, and the two most famous deposits were Glenmark Swamp and Te Aute; but it would take too much space to give here an account of all the other extraordinary discoveries of Moa deposits made by such men as Dr. Thomson, Mr. Earl, Mr. Thorne, Dr. H. O. Forbes, and many others. Besides many fragments of eggshell, a number of eggs have been found, which will be enumerated elsewhere.

Feathers have been found at Clutha River, near Roxburgh, and also in caves near Queenstown. Those from Clutha are mostly dark, being black with white tips; while the Queenstown ones resemble feathers ofApteryx australisin colours. Professor Owen has shown thatMegalapteryx huttoniwas feathered down to the toes, and in the plate I have represented it clothed with feathers similar to the Clutha ones, which I believe belong to this species. The Moas at one time must have been extraordinarily numerous, both in numbers and species, and they varied in height from 2½ feet to 12 feet. Professor Parker has shown that some of the species had crests of long feathers on the head, and, as some adult skulls of the same forms show no signs of this, he infers that the males alone had this appendage. There has been much discussion as to the time when the Moas became extinct, and we know for certain that the two species,Dinornis maximusandAnomalopteryx antiquus, belong to a much earlier geological epoch than the bulk of the other species. It would be too lengthy for my purpose to go into the arguments, but we can, by the study of the "kitchen middens" of Maoris and their traditions, fairly adduce that the Maoris arrived in the North Island some 600 years ago, that they hunted Moas, and that they exterminated them about 100 to 150 years after their arrival. In the South, or rather Central, Island, the Maoris appear to have arrived about 100 years later, and to have exterminated the Moas about 350 years ago. It is only fair to say, however, that Monsieur de Quatrefages adduces evidence in his paper which goes far to prove that Moas existed down to the end of the 18th or even beginning of the 19th century in those parts of the Middle Island not, or scantily, inhabited by Maoris.

TheDinornithidaeform a separate group of the orderRatitae, in no way closely related to the Australian Emu (Dromaius), as many ornithologists have asserted, but nearer to the South American Nandu (Rhea) than any other livingRatitae, though exhibiting many characters in common with theApterygidae. There have been a number of classifications set up of this family. The first by Reichenbach, in 1850, with 7 species and 7 genera!The next was by Von Haast, in 1873, who enumerated 10 species, divided into 4 genera. The third was Lydekker's, in 1891, who acknowledged 23 species, divided into 5 genera. Then came Hutton's, in 1892, which left outMegalapteryx, with its then known 2 species, and acknowledged 26 species, divided into 7 genera. Lastly we have Professor Parker's, in 1895, in which againMegalapteryxis left out, and 21 species are acknowledged, divided into 5 genera. There has been a great amount of controversy as to the number of species of Moas which really ought to be distinguished, and of late years there has been a tendency to unite most of the species as synonyms, the authors declaring that bones vary to such a degree that all the characters relied on for the distinguishing of the various species were individual variations, and that, besides, it was impossible that so many distinct forms could have occurred in such a small area. The extreme of this lumping was reached when Professor Forbes, in the Bulletin of the Liverpool Museums, III, pp. 27 and 28 (1900), divided the Moas into six genera, each with a single species. He thus ignores the fact that by doing so he has united forms which were founded onFULLY ADULTbones, and yet some of them were only about half or two-thirds the size of the others. I personally think that too many species have been made, and at least 7 of Captain Hutton's forms must be sunk. On the other hand some have been described since 1895 and 1900, and I have been obliged to name others rather against my will, so that in spite of uniting so many species of others I find I am obliged to acknowledge more species than anyone else. I have divided these into genera according to Professor Parker's classification, only addingPalaeocasuariusof Forbes, with 3 species, andMegalapteryx, with 5, which brings my number up to 38 species, divided into 7 genera. My reasons for not uniting these into 7 species and 7 genera, as those of the "lumping school" do, are twofold,—first, the bones of theRatitaeare much more solid than those of other birds, and are not given to so much individual variation; and, secondly, in the face of the great number of species of Paradise Birds and Cassowaries found on New Guinea, the contention that there could not be so many species of Moa on so small an area is not easily maintained. Moreover, we have strong support in the present fauna and flora for the presumption that, when the Moas first came into existence and differentiated into species, New Zealand was a much larger area, stretching at least from the Macquarie Islands in the south to the Kermadecs in the north, and from Lord Howe's Island on the west to the Chatham Islands on the east. So that, like the giant tortoises on the Galápagos Islands,they only got driven so closely together after their specific differentiation, when the land gradually subsided, owing to volcanic action. The differentiation of the family is asfollows:—

Skull with a short and wide beak. Pectoral girdle very small or absent, wing absent, only an indication inDinornis dromioides. Hallux absent or present. An extension bridge to the tibio-tarsus, which is placed near the inner border of the bone. No superior notch to the sternum. Most of the species of very large size. The tarso-metatarsus is either long and slender or short and wide, and its anterior surface may or may not be grooved. The second trochlea is longer than the fourth, the third is not pedunculated, and there is no perforation in the groove between the third and fourth trochlea. In the tibio-tarsus the cnemial crest rises well above the head; the extensor groove is separated by a considerable interval from the inner border of the bone. There is a well-defined intercondylar tubercle; the intercondylar gorge is deep, and there is no deep pit on the lateral surface of the entocondyle. The femur may be either slender or stout, but is not markedly curved forwards. The popliteal depression is deep, and the summit of the great trochanter rises considerably above the level of the head. The pelvis approximates to that of theApterygidae, but the pectineal process of the pubis is less developed, and the ischium and pubis may be longer and more slender. The coracoid and scapula are aborted and may be absent. The sternum, which may be either long and narrow, or broad and short, differs from that of theApterygidaeby the absence of the superior notch, the divergent lateral processes, and the reduction of the coracoidal grooves to small facets or their total disappearance. The cervical vertebrae are relatively short, an expanded neural platform as far as the sixth.

InAnomalopteryxandMegalapteryxthe number of cervical vertebrae is 21, and there are 2 cervico-dorsal and 4 free dorsal vertebrae, so it is fair to assume that this is the correct number throughout the family.

The feathers had after-shafts.

I have adopted Professor Parker's classification in the genera, only substitutingCelaReichenbach forMesapteryxHutton, which is a synonym ofMegalapteryxHaast. As to the species I have used my own judgment; I felt obliged to name a number of species acknowledged by Parker and Lydekker but not named, because this system of indicating species by the letters A, B, C, &c., which has crept into our nomenclature, will make all understanding impossible, as not always the same species is denoted by the same letter. A few of these species will naturally later have to be sunk, as some have been founded on skulls and others on leg bones, or so, which, when we get perfect individual skeletons may prove to be identical, but I do not think these will be many.

Besides a number of imperfect eggs, particulars of which will be found in Dr. A. B. Meyer's article in the Ibis, 1903, pp. 188-196, there are known two perfect Moa eggs and one almost perfect one.

1. Otago Museum. Molyneux River, 1901.Pachyornis pondorosus.2. Tring Museum. Molyneux River, 1901.Megalapteryx huttoni.3. Rowley Collection. South Island, 1859.Dinornis novaezealandiae.

1. Otago Museum. Molyneux River, 1901.Pachyornis pondorosus.

2. Tring Museum. Molyneux River, 1901.Megalapteryx huttoni.

3. Rowley Collection. South Island, 1859.Dinornis novaezealandiae.

Theskull is broad and much depressed, with a comparatively wide, somewhat pointed and deflected beak. Breadth at the squamosals twice the height at basi-temporal. It has a flattened frontal region, and a wide median ridge on the upper surface of the praemaxillae. The mandible is in the form of a narrowU, with the angle much inflected, no distinct anticular process, and the symphysis moderately wide, narrowing anteriorly, with a prominent and broad inferior ridge, widest in front. The quadrate is elongated, with a very large pneumatic foramen. The sternum is nearly as long as broad, very convex, with distinct coracoidal facets, 3 costal articulations, very small and reflected costal processes, the lateral processes very broad and widely divergent, and a wide xiphisternal notch. The pelvis is narrow with a high ilium, in which the inferior border of the postacetabular portion is flat, and does not descend as a sharp ridge below the level of the anterior postacetabular vertebrae. The pubis has a small pectineal process; and the ventral aspect of the true and postacetabular vertebrae is very broad and much flattened.

The distal extremity of the tibio-tarsus is not inflected. A hallux is present in some species. The tibio-tarsus and tarso-metatarsus are long and slender, the length of the latter equalling and more often exceeding the length of the femur, and also exceeding half the length of the tibio-tarsus. The femur is comparatively long and slender, with a short neck, the head rising but slightly and projecting only a small distance, the linear aspera in the form of a long irregular line, the outer side of the distal extremity moderately expanded, the popliteal depression small, deep, and sharply defined, the profile of the inner condyle semi-ovoid and narrow, and the interior trochlear surface nearly flat. The phalangeals of the pes are long and comparatively slender, the proximal surface of the terminal segments not being trefoil-shaped. In the vertebral column the middle cervicals are long and narrow, with the postzygapophyses directed much outwardly and separated by a very deep channel, and the posterior face of the centrum low and wide. The dorsals have short transverse processes and neural spine, the anterior and middle ones (those with a haemal spine or carina) having a large anterior pneumatic foramen between the nib-facet, the foramen being triangular in shape. All the species of this genus are of comparatively large size, and include the tallest members of the family.

Type of the genus:Dinornis novaezealandiae(Owen).

Number of species: 7.

Dinornis maximusOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VI. p. 497 (1868).D. excelsusHutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXIV. p. 110 (1892).D. giganteusHaast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. I p. 88, No. 20 part.

Dinornis maximusOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VI. p. 497 (1868).

D. excelsusHutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXIV. p. 110 (1892).

D. giganteusHaast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. I p. 88, No. 20 part.

Thisis the largest species of Moa, the tibio-tarsus being from 37.5 to 39.2 inches in length, while that of the largestD. giganteusdoes not exceed 35 inches, but by far the largest number of the latter are considerably shorter.

The type bones were obtained in Glenmark Swamp, Middle Island of New Zealand, and were sent to Professor Owen by Major J. Michael of the Madras Staff Corps. Casts of these bones are in the British Museum, No. A 161 in the Palaeontological Department.

This bird was the tallest of all known birds, though it must have been considerably exceeded in bulk byAepyornis ingensandAepyornis titanof Madagascar.

Locality: Glenmark Swamp, Middle Island, New Zealand.

Dinornis maximusOwen, Ext. Birds N.Z. p. 253 (Dr. Lillie's specimen) (1879).D. altusOwen, Ext. Birds N.Z. (1879) p. 361.D. giganteus var maximusOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VI p. 497 (1868).

Dinornis maximusOwen, Ext. Birds N.Z. p. 253 (Dr. Lillie's specimen) (1879).

D. altusOwen, Ext. Birds N.Z. (1879) p. 361.

D. giganteus var maximusOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VI p. 497 (1868).

Onlyknown by a tarso-metatarsus, femur and tibio-tarsus from the Middle Island, New Zealand. The bones at once noticeable by their great length, and are more slender than the same bones inD. maximus. This form must therefore, till further material comes to hand, be treated as a separate species.

Locality: Middle Island, New Zealand. Collected by Dr. Lillie.

Dinornis giganteusOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III p. 237 (1843) and p. 307 (1846).Moa giganteusReichenbach, Nat. Syst. der Vög. p. XXX (1850).Dinornis maximus(nonD. maximusOwen of 1867!) Trans. Zool. Soc. X p. 147 (1877).D. validusHutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. p. 111 (1892).

Dinornis giganteusOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III p. 237 (1843) and p. 307 (1846).

Moa giganteusReichenbach, Nat. Syst. der Vög. p. XXX (1850).

Dinornis maximus(nonD. maximusOwen of 1867!) Trans. Zool. Soc. X p. 147 (1877).

D. validusHutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. p. 111 (1892).

Back to Index Next