W h e n this wort was on the eve of publication, we received the Bulletin He la Classe ph/s. math de
l ’Académie^ Imp. de St. Pétersiowg, vC vii. No. 8, containing an abstract of a paper by Professor J. P.
Brandt, entitled "Untersuchungen über die Verwandtschaften, die systematische Stellung, die geographische
Verbreitung und die Vertagung des Dodo, nebst Bemerkungen über die eim Vaterlande des Dodo, oder auf
den Nachbarinseln desselben früher vorhandenen grossen Wadvögel." This memoir, which was read
Dec. 17, 1847, contains the author’s views of the affinities of the Dodo, which, it will be seen, differ con-'
siderably from our own. He states that after a diligent comparison of a cast of the Copenhagen Dodo-head
with the osteological series in the Petersburg Museum, he had arrived at the following conclusions | H |
“ 1. The Dodo, taken strictly, in regard either to the anatomy, or to the outer form of the head and foot,
was not a Baptorial Bird, not even m anomalous one, although the last opinion has been adopted by several
modem English and French naturalists of high reputation.
" 8. The great difference in the form of its skull and beak from those of the Ostrich, equally forbids us
to include it, as was formerly done, in that family of birds, although it approached them in its short wings,
the texture of its plumage, its strong and (in general form) not very dissimilar feet, and the mode of scutu-
lation of the tarsi.
" 8. Neither can the Dodo be included among the Gallinaceous birds, on account of the vêry-impprtant
differences of its'cranial structure, and other discrepancies of outward form; although the form of its tarsus
and the organization of its toes come very near to those of many GaUinse.
"4. The Dodo agrees in the form of the majority of its cranial bones, and even in the shape of the
beak, with the prevailing type of the Pigeons, as I had perceived, in common with my colleague v. Hamel,
in the summer of 1846. Yet, considering the different form of the frontal, vertical, and occipital facets of
its cranium, and the different shape and size of the lachrymal bone,1 the palate hone, upper mandible, and
maxillary continuation of the nasal, as well as the diversity of the wings, toes, and plumage, I am unable to
refer it to the Pigeons, either immediately, or even as an aberrant form.
“ 5. The Dodo, a bird provided with divided toes and cursorial feet, is best classed in the order of
Waders, among which it appears, from its many peculiarities (most of which, however, are quite referable
to forms in this order), to be an anomalous link connecting several groups, a link which, for the reasons
above given, inclines towards the Ostriches, and especially also towards the Pigeons. "
"a. In regard to the cranial structure it approaches, among the Waders, most nearly to the Plovers, a
group which also points, the most clearly of all Waders, to the type of the Pigeon's skull.8 It inclines, it is true,
1 Prefrontal of this Treatise.
2 “ typieal aQd great similarity of the skull in the Pigeons and Plovers is placed in juxtaposition in my
treatise on the Dodo. One may accordingly regard the Plovers as Pigeon-forms, developed among the Waders, and
in a few points, more directly to the Pigeons than the Plovers do, yet these points, taken strictly, are such
as the Pigeons have in common, not, indeed, with the Chara&m, but wholly with the Porphyrio, as well as
with other groups of Waders. Moreover the Dodo, as already shown, differs from the Pigeons in the form
of several of the cranial bones,—differences, nearly all of which exist also in the Charadrii, and occur as
points of connection with different Wading birds.
“ b. The remarkable form of the frontal region of the Dodo’s skull indicates a combination of the
frontal structure in Chauna, Grus pavonina, Chionis, and Scolopax rusticóla, since, in regard to outline, it
resembles Chama-, in the arching of its lower part, Chionis-, in its great amount of arching generally, it
is like Grus pavomna; in the very broad superior extremities of the lachrymal bone, trending towards the
forehead, it agrees with Scolopax rusticóla.
“ c. The form of the crown and occiput of the Dodo reminds us of Porphyrio, Grus pavonma, the
Gallmee, &c., but not of the Pigeons.
“ d. The elevated upper mandible of the Dodo, in which it differs from the Cha/rad/rii and Pigeons,
refers us to Cicoma, Tantalus, Ibis.
“ e. The broad maxillary continuation of the nasal bone in the Dodo, points to Ciconia and Porphyrio.
“f . The palatines of the Dodo, which do not slope outwards at the inner margin of their anterior
extremity, are formed as in the Grui/rue, Scolopacma, and Chara&rii/na, but not as in the Pigeons.
“ g. The bones of the feet and toes in the Dodo agree best with those of Hamatopus, among the
Wading Birds.
“ h. The naked forehead, cheeks, and guiar region refer to Tantalus, Grus leucogeranus, and so to
Cicoma, Mycteria, and many Gallina, much more than to the Vultures, and not at all to the Pigeons.
“ i. The beak of the Dodo, in its general form, may be as correctly regarded to be a slightly modified
colossal beak of a Charadrius, as of a Pigeon. On the other hand, it seems inadmissible to connect this bird
with the Vulture, as it differs greatly therefrom in its short hooked extremity, only slightly emarginate at
the lower edge.
“ k. The nostrils, placed far forwards, and resembling perpendicular fissures, show a resemblance with
those of Chionis, in part also with those of many Pigeons, but hardly with those of many Vultures (nicht
aber bios mit denen mmcher Geier).
“ The Dodo may also be placed before the Dove-like Chwrad/rii, as an anomalous form and a peculiar
group of Waders, so that its affinity to Cranes, Storks, Woodcocks, Ibises, and Water-hens may be indicated
; as I have done in a special table, which exhibits the single families of the Pigeons, GalH/na,
Ostriches, and Waders, arranged according to their relations of affinity. In the same table, also, the connections
of the Dodo to the Ostriches and Pigeons are shown by dotted lines.”
In a note appended to this paper, Professor Brandt thus relates the progress of his researches :—
“ In order to establish more exactly my past, present, and future, wholly independent, opinion, with
reference to Messrs. Strickland’s and Melville’s researches on the Dodo, I beg to make the following observations.
Already in May, 1846, when Dr. Hamel had laid before the Academy a cast of the Copenhagen
Dodo’s head (Bull. Phys. Math. vol. v. p. 314), I invited him to join me in comparing the cast with the
skulls of other birds in the Museum of the Academy. It soon resulted that the Dodo was no Vulture,
Ostrich, or Galline, but rather a Pigeon-like bird. I soon after briefly communicated this result to M. Lichtenstein,
and requested him to make it known to the Berlin Academy or the Natural History Society. It
greatly allied in the structure of their beaks; a relation which was unobserved by Strickland and Melville, inasmuch
as they pronounced the Dodo to be actually a Pigeon.” •