Part 15

See, especially, Bontekoe’s figure, copied by Strickland, in the title-page and at p. 63 of the above-cited work.

Owen, ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ 1866, vol. ii. p. 32.

Called “hyosternal” in the Geoffroyan determination of parts of the bird’s sternum.

The intermuscular ridges (‘pectoral,’ ‘subcostal,’ ‘carinal’) are, with other parts of the bird’s sternum, here named as defined in my ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. ii. pp. 16–23.

“La Mare aux Songes.”

Proc. Zool. Soc. l. c. p. 5.

Proc, Zool. Soc. l. c. p. 6.

Zool. Trans. vol. iv. pl. 24. fig. 4.

Odontography, pl. 146. fig. 1; Anat. of Vertebrates, vol. ii. p. 439. fig. 296.

The habit of the Dodo to avail itself of extraneous crushers to a gallinaceous or struthious degree, is attested by the quotation, p. 8, not the least interesting of the fruits of the extensive research of the learned and conscientious author of the Article +Dodo+, in the ‘Penny Cyclopædia.’

Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 51.

Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. iv. pl. 24. fig. 4.

Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 65. fig. 3.

Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 65. fig. 1.

Ibid. fig. 5.

Histoire Naturelle &c., 4to, tom. xiv. “Dégénération des Animaux:” 1760.

Philosophie Zoologique, 8vo, 1809, tom. i, chaps. 3, 6, & 7.

Agreeably with the principle of the “contest for existence” by which I explained the extinction of the species of Dinornis, Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. iv. p. 14, 1851.

Strickland and Melville, ‘The Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848, p. 34.

Op. cit. p. 34.

See letter in ‘The Times’ of May 21st, 1862, advocating the limitation of the National Museum of Natural History to “six rooms,” signed +Thomas H. Huxley+, F.R.S.

Reply to the above in ‘The Times’ of May 2nd, 1866, and in both editions (1861, 1862) of my ‘Discourse on the Extent and Aims of a National Museum of Natural History.’ “Some naturalists urge that it is only necessary to exhibit the type-form of each genus or family. But they do not tell us what is such ‘type-form.’ It is a metaphysical term, which implies that the Creative Force had a guiding pattern for the construction of all the varying or divergent forms in each genus or family. The idea is devoid of proof; and those who are loudest in advocating the restriction of exhibited specimens to ‘types’ have contributed least to lighten the difficulties of the practical curator in making the selection.” (Ed. 1862, p. 24; see also pp. 26–34.)

“The doctrine of typical nuclei seems only a mode of evading the difficulty. Experience does not give us the types of theory; and, after all, what are these types? It must be admitted there are none in reality. How are we led to the theory of them? Simply by a process of abstraction from classified existences. Having grouped from natural similitudes certain natural forms into a class, we select attributes common to each member of the class, and call the assemblage of such attributes a type of the class. This process gives us an abstract idea; and we then transfer this idea to the Creator, and make Him start with that which our own imperfect generalization has derived.” (Address, &c., by +William R. Grove+, Esq., Q.C., M.A. 8vo, London, 1866: p. 31.)

See Dr. Bennett’s excellent notes on the living Didunculus, in the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,’ 1864, p. 139.

To my friend Dr. Bennett I owe the first specimens of the Nautilus pompilius, impregnated uterus of the Kangaroo and Ornithorhynchus, the young Ornithorhynchus, and other rare subjects of early Memoirs. Natural History owes much to this accomplished and indefatigable Observer.

The scapular arch is rotated in advance of the ribs to show the character of the anterior dorsal vertebræ.

See also Gould, ‘Birds of Australia,’ part 22 (March, 1846).

I beg to return my acknowledgments to the Trustees of the Liverpool Museum for the opportunity of figuring two specimens, in this Plate, from the collection of Dodos’ bones in that Museum.