The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History

LIFE OF THE PAST            James O. Farlow, editor

THE DODO AND THE SOLITAIRE

A NATURAL HISTORY

JOLYON C. PARISH

INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS               Bloomington & Indianapolis

This book is a publication of

Indiana University Press

601 North Morton Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47404-3797 USA

iupress.indiana.edu

Telephone orders 800-842-6796

Fax orders 812-855-7931

© 2013 by Jolyon C. Parish

All rights reserved

A list of illustration credits appears at the end of the book.

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

Manufactured in the

United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Parish, Jolyon C., [date]

    The dodo and the solitaire : a natural history / Jolyon C. Parish.

    p. cm.–(Life of the past)

    Includes bibliographical references and index.

    ISBN 978-0-253-00099-6 (cloth : alk. paper)–ISBN 978-0-253-00103-0 (e-book)

1. Dodo. 2. Solitaire (Bird) I. Title.

    QL696.C67P37 2013

    598.9--dc23

                                                        2012023510

    1  2  3  4  5    18  17  16  15  14  13

To

HUGH EDWIN STRICKLAND (1811–1853)

and

ALEXANDER GORDON MELVILLE (1819–1901)

and to

MY PARENTS

Contents

C

Acknowledgments

Introduction: A Melancholy Visage

Note on Translations

Notes on the Text

List of Abbreviations

1   Written Accounts of the Dodo

First Encounters: Van Neck's Account

Cermes Gaensen: The Journals of the Gelderland

Reyer Cornelisz's Account

Van West-Zanen's Account

Matelief's Account

Van der Hagen's Account

Johann Verken's Account

Manuel de Almeida's Account

The Altham Dodo

The Phœnix of Mauritius: Thomas Herbert's Account

The Surat Dodos

The Burgemeesters (Anonymous 1631)

A strange fowle: L'Estrange's Dodo

François Cauche's Account

The Batavia Dodo

Castaways' Tales: The Aernhem Disaster

The Last Days

The Red Rail and the Dodo

2   Written Accounts of the Rodrigues Solitaire

Introduction

Memoirs of a Refugee: Leguat's Account

Tafforet's Account

Jonchée 1729

Gennes de la Chancelière 1733

D'Heguerty 1754

Cossigny 1755

Sic itur ad astra: The Visit of Alexandre-Guy Pingré

3   Contemporary Illustrations

Introduction

Unequalled of the Age: Mans r's Dodo Painting (Mans r)

The Dodo's Portrait Painter: Roelandt Savery

Van der Venne's Illustration (Van-der-Venne)

De Hondecoeter's Dodo Paintings

Hans II Savery's Dodo Illustrations

Saftleven's Dodo Painting

Van den Broecke's Dodo

Ruthart, Francken, and Van Thulden's Paintings

The 2009 Christie's Dodo Picture (Christie's-Dronte)

Mistaken Identity: Minaggio's Feather Picture

4   Secondary Contemporary Sources and Miscellanea

Clusius's Account

Plinius Secundus

Bontius's Account

Nieuhof's Account

Randle Holme's The Academy of Armory

Post-traumatic Reminiscences: Bontekoe's Account

South American Dodos: Van Spilbergen's Account

Two Mauritian Robinsonades: Neville and Von Grimmelshausen

A Troubled Afterlife: Post-contemporary Accounts

Naming the Dodo and Solitaire

Pseudodoxia Epidemica: The Réunion Dodos

The Dodo and the Penguin

The Dodo of Vere

Dodo Miscellanea

5   Anatomical Evidences

Introduction

The Prague Dodo

The Copenhagen Dodo Head

The Anatomy School Dodos

Petrus Pauwius's Dodo Foot

The British Museum Dodo Foot

The Tradescant Specimen

Resurrection: History of Bone Discoveries (1786-Present)

6   The Natural History of the Dodo and the Solitaire

Description

Ecology

Classification and Taxonomy

Phylogenetic Placement and Evolution

Taphonomy

7   Afterword: Memories of Green

Rara Avis

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgments

A

Many people have helped with this project. Where information has been generously provided they are mentioned in the main text. I would especially like to thank Anthony Cheke, Fanny Cornuault, Errol Fuller, Owen Griffiths, Alan Grihault, Jan den Hengst, Julian Hume, Anwar Janoo, Arturo Valledor de Lozoya, and Ralfe Whistler for assistance and scholarly discussion over the years. I am grateful to Nick Arnold, Fred Stone, Didier Dutheil, and Pierre Bourgault du Coudray for providing personal accounts of their discoveries. For their generous help I would like to thank Clair Castle, Ann Charlton, Adrian Friday, and Ray Symonds at Cambridge and Malgosia Nowak-Kemp at Oxford. I would like to express my thanks to Bob Sloan and the staff at Indiana University Press for all their help, and in particular to June Silay and Raina Polivka. I am also grateful to the staff at the British Library, NHM Libraries, Lampeter University Library, and The Plume Library, Maldon. For all their help and support I have to thank my parents and AEK Jan den Hengst, Anthony Cheke, Elio Corti, Birgit Jauker, Esther van Gelder, Florike Egmond, and Arturo Valledor de Lozoya provided assistance with translations. Jesper Düring Jørgensen, Kongelige Bibliotek, kindly provided a facsimile extract of Paludanus's 1617–1618 MS. Arthur MacGregor, Hanneke Meijer, and Greg Middleton read through draft sections. I would like to thank Paul Barrett for suggesting, and putting me in contact with, Indiana University Press. The title of the afterword was borrowed from Vangelis (Blade Runner soundtrack, 1994; See You Later, 1980). An anonymous reviewer provided helpful comments and corrections on the book manuscript, and Dawn Ollila copyedited the text and gave helpful input.

Introduction: A Melancholy Visage

I

The visage of the dodo, its plight, and extinction are indeed melancholic, but counter to Thomas Herbert's statement, it is not nature's injurie that is the cause of melancholy, but the destruction of the species and its habitat as a result of human activities. The pieces of this visage or picture are presented here; it is a picture that endures today.

The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) and the solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria) were large, flightless columbids endemic to the volcanic Mascarene Islands in the Indian Ocean: the former to Mauritius and the latter to Rodrigues (figs. Intro.1–Intro.3). The dodo is renowned for being extinct; indeed, it is an icon of extinction. This, combined with its attractive appearance - great size, large head, small wings and rounded body (often exaggerated in pictures) - renders it a familiar bird. It disappeared within around one hundred years of its first recorded description and thus, although we have enough information to gain an idea of its appearance and ecology, there is insufficient evidence to form an accurate picture; this has led to many speculations. The story of the dodo, like that of the solitaire, has been pieced together from fragments, both literary and physical. Dodology - the study of the dodo (Oudemans 1917b) - entails knowledge of history, anatomy, ecology, art, and literature. Many hundreds of articles have been written about it (see the online bibliography in The Dodologist's Miscellany) and it was, and still is, a popular inclusion in natural history books.

The dodo was formerly known as Didus ineptus, under which name it is commonly found in older literature. Together, the dodo and Rodrigues solitaire are sometimes referred to as didine birds. The Réunion solitaire was formerly included in this group, but is now known to have been an ibis. However, the matter has been complicated by attribution of illustrations of white dodos to this bird. In the past, due to confusion, a so-called bird of Nazare was also sometimes included among the didine birds. Following the classification used herein, the dodo and solitaire are referred to as raphins (that is, of the tribe Raphini) in the text.

The Mascarenes were probably discovered by the Arabs and subsequently by the Portuguese. The Dutch first landed on Mauritius in 1598 and were apparently the first to describe the dodo. No pre-1598 records are known for the dodo or solitaire (pers. obs.; Janoo 2005). It was common in the seventeenth century to refer to the lands of the Indian Ocean as the East Indies and to the lands east of Africa as India. Thus, any textual mentions of Indian birds should be investigated for potential references to the dodo.

There have been speculations involving, among other things, seasonal and sexual size differences, color, and diet. As Van Wissen relayed, Since Dodology is spread over many disciplines there's no interdisciplinary monitoring…. This has been the case from the very beginning and explains why there are more unrefuted speculations about the Dodo than any other bird (1995, 8). Likewise, Fuller remarked: Anyone delving into dodo literature should beware. Most of it is poorly written, badly conceived and contradictory (2002, 30). Mistakes have often been repeated, with little or no reference to their source material. There has been much inferior scholarship in dodo research (a recent example being Pinto-Correia 2003). Moreover, suppositions have often been stated and re-stated as facts. Some contemporary accounts (e.g., Matelief 1646; Van der Hagen 1646; Van West-Zanen 1648) were published many years after the event. Furthermore, it is not known to what extent editors changed text or added material.

this mirae conformationis avi

Hamel (1848, 156)

The subject [of the dodo] indeed is well worn. Nevertheless the interest is great; for nothing ever clothed in feathers, either living or extinct, has so generally and universally occupied the minds of men as the species in question.

Rowley (1877, 123)

In short…the Do Do is the most badly used bird in existence by some persons.

Rowley (1877, 123)

Intro.1. The Mascarene Islands.

Intro.2. Mauritius.

Dissanayake ranked evidence based on Fuller (2002), stating, Pictures have more value than written descriptions (descriptions are usually incomplete and subject to errors from memory or copying) (2004, 166). However, images such as paintings may be composites (based on a number of sketches); may be subject to artistic license; and may be limited by the colors available, by the artist's skill, and by the source used (for example, Van Kessel employed Van den Broecke's engraving as a source and added his own imagined colors).

It should be noted that the primary aim of most contemporary dodo artists was probably not necessarily to produce an anatomically accurate work, but an aesthetic and saleable one, although the still life and natural history paintings of the period were often accurate (cf. Van-Ravesteyn). Thus, the coloration of the dodo and other animals was probably altered to suit their position in, and the nature of, the composition. For example, the Savery-Dahlem dodo is white, as are adjacent animals, as it is in a very pale area of the painting. Painters often worked from sketches (as is the case of the works derived from the Savery-Crocker sketch) and may not have had accurate color references, relying instead on notes or memory or both.

Intro.3. Rodrigues.

Furthermore, it should be noted that due to the nature of the publications, some dodo and solitaire illustrations might not have been particularly accurate. Engravings were often added to make works more saleable, and plates were sometimes composed of diverse elements put together to create a scene (such as Het tweede Boeck and the work of the De Brys). These were often based, at least partly, on written (and probably oral) descriptions or pure imagination. If the accounts were published some time after the actual voyage then these illustrations may have been less accurate. As such, the habitats in which the dodo is presented may not be representative of the actual. Moreover, travelers (such as Herbert and Leguat) were often not accomplished artists, and as such their work should be treated with some caution. Illustrations may have been added later from other sources when works were published (Van den Broecke's dodo may be an example of this), and some may have been commissioned without any pictorial source, with only the text for inspiration (the illustrations accompanying Van West-Zanen's account being a possible example). There was also a tradition in the seventeenth century of creating paintings from preexisting engravings (for example, the illustrations of Van Kessel, Walther, and the Florence Codex).

Intro.4. Reconstruction of the head of the dodo (Strickland and Melville 1848, pl. v, fig. 2).

Also to be noted is the fact that by copying illustrations to make engravings the resulting picture becomes a mirror image of the original. Examples of such copies include the engravings of De Bry and De Bry (1601, copied from Het tweede Boeck 1601) and Jonstonus (1650, copied from Clusius 1605). Another point to be mentioned is that it was the artistic style of the period to show the two feet the same, and many dodo illustrations show two left or two right feet.

The same caution to be taken with the illustrations also applies to written accounts. Text was often copied from other works. There are also instances of changes to the original in the published text (see chapter 1) and text inserted at a later date (see Von Mandelslo: chapter 1; Stokram's description may be another example). Also, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain whether an account was created from secondhand or original eyewitness information (e.g., Cauche 1651). Furthermore, color description can be vague - gray can cover a wide variety of tones and colors.

A similar circumstance is evident with the cassowary, of which the first specimen was brought to Europe in 1598. The cassowary was described as lacking a tongue and was thought to shed and regrow its casque with its plumage (e.g., Clusius 1605). It was also said to eat anything offered to it, even live coals. The first two statements, at least, were later proved incorrect, showing that old accounts are not always accurate.

Copyright was rarely upheld in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and as such extracts and sometimes even large pieces of text were lifted without attribution from previous authors’ works: People simply borrowed, pirated or stuck in bits at will, with or without acknowledging their sources just so long as the result was tasteful and saleable (Van Wissen 1995, 24). Examples of this include Soeteboom's edition of Van West-Zanen's journal, and Nieremberg and Jonstonus's use of Clusius's text.

The ecology of the Mascarenes is discussed in more detail in Cheke and Hume (2008) and the reader is referred to this work for further information. This book also contains details on the potential foods of the dodo and solitaire and the invasive species of the islands.

Much of this volume is a compilation of previous ideas. With so much unknown about the dodo and solitaire, it is easy to speculate and there have been many such speculations. Those of dubious veracity are commented upon, but many cannot be proven one way or the other.

The dodo's story is one of kunstkammers, long ocean voyages, and traveler's tales. The information herein aims to provide an accurate, comprehensive picture of the birds, their history, and afterlife - thus allowing a fuller appreciation of them.

When one thinks of the small extent of this islet, one can hardly be surprised that these animals, formerly so common, completely disappeared; in spite of their fecundity, they could not resist such means of destruction.

What we note for the tortoises had to also occur for the terrestrial birds; it is obvious that the sailors cannot be blamed for pursuing and killing them. These species, whose poorly developed wings made capture easy, at the same time as the tastiness of their flesh made them sought after, were bound to die out quickly. To explain their extinction it is thus not necessary to invoke changes in their biological conditions.

The action of man was easy enough, it was exerted there without obstacles and with greater facility than everywhere else; it continues on many other points of the globe, and as of today one can envisage the time when many apterous birds, large Cetacea and certain species of seals and sea-lions will have been destroyed by man. (Milne-Edwards 1875, 20)

Intro.5. Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811–1853), with a copy of Strickland and Melville (1848). Engraved by Thomas Herbert Maguire from a photograph by Philip Henry Delamotte in 1853. T. H. Maguire, Lith. - De La Motte, Photoh -M. & N. Hanhart, Impt (from Jardine 1858).

Intro.6. Dodo reconstruction by Rowland Ward, Ltd., Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh (Renshaw 1931 [photograph by Graham Renshaw, Courtesy of Dr. Ritchie]).

Note on Translations

N

For ease of reading, non-English language texts have been translated, with new translations made of the accounts. Those who wish to consult the original texts are directed to The Dodologist's Miscellany at http://sites.google.com/site.dodologistsmiscellany/. This resource also contains some of the derivative texts of contemporary accounts for comparison. The texts have been translated as accurately as possible, although unfortunately, this has sometimes been at the expense of readability.

Notes on the Text

N

Dutch surnames are abbreviated, as is commonly done, so that Harmansz is Harmanszoon (Harmanszen), Evertsz is Evertszen, and so on. Names such as Reyer, Holsteyn, and Ravesteyn are spelled thus, instead of Reijer, Holsteijn, and Ravesteijn (unless they are modern names).

In text relating to the Mascarenes, summer and winter refer to the seasons in the Southern Hemisphere: summer being November to April, and winter May to October (Grihault 2005b). In the hot season there are cyclones and heavy rainfall, and in the cooler season there are cold winds and less rain (Grihault 2005b). Mauritius has limited seasonality, but is subject to trade winds from the southeast.

For ease of reading, the contemporary illustrations are referred to by a hyphenated abbreviation: for example, Roelandt Savery's painting in the Mauritshuis collection, The Hague, is referred to as Savery-Mauritshuis; and Van der Venne's illustration as Van-der-Venne.

In the older literature, Mauritius is sometimes referred to as Île de France and Réunion as Île Bourbon.

In the text solitaire refers to the Rodrigues solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria), and Réunion solitaire refers to the Réunion ibis (Threskiornis solitarius).

Maroon (Marron) slaves are runaway slaves.

It should also be noted that only those voyages that contain accounts of the dodo are mentioned herein. Many other ships stopped at Mauritius but left no record of the dodo (see Bruijn et al. 2004 for further details).

All observations of dead birds made by the author were made from individuals found already dead.

This volume is part of a larger corpus of work, the remainder of which, comprising The Dodologist's Miscellany, is available online at http://sites.google.com/site/dodologistsmiscellany/.

The following conversions have been used in the text:

Measurements

• English inch = 25.4 mm, foot = 30.48 cm, yard = 91.44 cm

• Amsterdam duim (inch) = 25.7 mm

• Vienna line = 2.20 mm (Frey and Cutter 1872, giving 1 Vienna inch as 26.34 mm)

• Rhenish line = 2.18 mm (Frey and Cutter 1872)

• Eighteenth-century Paris inch = 27 mm, foot (Pied de Roi) = 32.47 cm

• Nineteenth-century Paris foot = 32.48 cm, giving 1 Paris inch = 27.07 mm

• English pound = 453.59 g

• French livre (pound) = 489.5 g

In nineteenth-century Germany the Paris inch was usually used, although the Vienna inch or the Rhenish inch were also used (Frey and Cutter 1872). Some measurements from German-language articles have not been converted due to this ambiguity. It should be remembered that measurements are approximate, because the exact lengths of many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century measures are not known, and because most measurements given by authors were probably only estimates.

Abbreviations

A

1.1. The Dutch on Mauritius, with cassowaries (De Bry and De Bry 1600/1601a, pl. iii).

Written Accounts of the Dodo

1

First Encounters: Van Neck's Account

The first eyewitnesses of the dodo to record its appearance were the Dutch-men and Zeelanders of the fleet of Admiral Jacob Cornelisz van Neck. These were part of the second expedition to the East Indies, the Tweede Schipvaart. The fleet consisted of eight ships: the flagship Mauritius (with Van Neck on board), the Amsterdam (with Vice-Admiral Wybrand van Warwijck on board), the Hollant, the Overijssel, the Gelderland, the Zeelandt, the Utrecht, and the yacht Vrieslandt. The eight ships departed from Texel in the Netherlands on May 1, 1598. During a storm near the Cape of Good Hope on August 8 the fleet was split up; the Amsterdam, the Gelderland, the Zeelandt, the Utrecht and the Vrieslandt headed for Mauritius, then known as Ilha do Cerne, whilst the others sailed to Île Sainte-Marie off the coast of Madagascar. Van Warwijck became commander of his small fleet, and Jacob van Heemskerk vice-commander. Having sighted land at around one o'clock in the afternoon on September 17, the Dutch approached; they were uncertain as to whether it was the Ilha do Cerne or Rodrigues.

Van Warwijck's five ships were at the island from September 18 until October 2. They anchored off the southeast coast and sent men ashore to search for food and fresh water. This was their first landfall since departing from the Netherlands. After the initial excursion a second was made - by a sloop from the Amsterdam and one from the Gelderland; they found a good harbor (Mahébourg Bay), which they named Warwijck Bay. Fresh water was found and toward evening the men came back with eight or nine large birds: dodos (see below; Hamel [1848] noted that these could not have been herons, as the latter could not be easily captured [Anon. 1601a]) and many small birds, which they had caught by hand.

The following morning, September 19, the ships sailed into Warwijck Bay and sailors went ashore again to collect food, including dodos and other birds. The officers of the Amsterdam, the Utrecht, the Zeelandt and the Vrieslandt thought that the island was Rodrigues, whereas those of the Gelderland correctly considered it to be Ilha do Cerne (Den Hengst 2003). The island was renamed Mauritius in honor of Stadhouder Maurits van Nassau. September 20 was the Amsterdam kermis or fair (see below) and a service of thanksgiving was held (Van Wissen 1995). Later that day, first one half of the crew, and then the other, went ashore (see Jolinck's description below). On September 21 a council held on board the Amsterdam decided that there should be further excursions inland; there were eight expeditions in total (Moree 1998).¹

There were expeditions inland on September 22–24 and 26–29 (led by Wouter Willekens with 10 men; the latter expedition went 17 miles along the shore to the western part of Warwijck Harbor) and on September 23–25 (led by Rochus Pietersz with 10 men). There were two excursions to the northeastern part of the harbor, led by Jolinck: September 23–27 (with Hans Bouwer and Jacob Pietersz) and September 28-October 1 (with Frank van der Does). On September 26 and 28 Van Warwijck sent expeditions to the islands in the harbor, including Île de la Passe (Moree 1998).

They found the island to be fertile and uninhabited, despite several inland forays - a paradise with fresh water, easily caught birds and useful plants:

we iudged by the tamenesse of the birds and fowles, that it must bee an vnfrequented place, by reason that men might take them plentifully with their hands. (Anon. 1601c, fol. 5v)

A variety of new fauna and flora was seen, including Rabos Forcados (Fregata ariel), turtledoves (Nesoenas mayeri), green and gray parrots, tortoises, many types of fish, and trees such as ebony and palms. The turtledoves were in such abundance that they caught over 150 in an afternoon.

On October 2 the Dutch sailed from Mauritius (Anon. 1601c). On November 26, the Hollant, the Mauritius, and the Overijssel arrived at Bantam in Java. The Vrieslandt subsequently joined up with Van Neck's fleet, and on December 27, the Amsterdam, the Gelderland, the Vrieslandt, the Zeelandt, and the Utrecht arrived at Engano, Sumatra. The ships met up in the East Indies and exchanged information. On January 12, 1599, the Mauritius, the Hollant, the Overijssel, and the Vrieslandt - under the command of Admiral Van Neck and Vice-admiral Jan Jansz Karel - departed from Bantam. Having visited St. Helena, they arrived back at Texel on July 19. Of these ships only the Vrieslandt had visited Mauritius.

There was much interest in the voyage. Van Neck was responsible for the published accounts, although of course he did not visit Mauritius. A provisional report in Dutch, the Waarachtige Beschryving, was published, probably in Amsterdam. Unfortunately, no extant copy of this is known. However, we do have the English translation (Anon. 1599).

The Waarachtige Beschryving gives the report of the voyage of the ships Mauritius, Hollant, and Overijssel. The identity of its editor is not known, but was probably Cornelis Claesz of Amsterdam. According to Keuning (1940), its author was not on either the Mauritius or the Hollant, and it was probably the journal of Wouter Willekens - who sailed on the Utrecht but returned to Holland on the Vrieslandt as mate, and who took part in excursions inland on Mauritius - that was the source. However, it could be that the author was on the Overijssel (perhaps Symen Jansz Hoen, the ship's captain) and recorded the oral communications of Willekens or others who had been on the Vrieslandt, or had used information from a journal of that vessel. The journal of Jacob Pietersz, who was quartermaster on the Amsterdam but returned as captain of the Vrieslandt, was not used (Keuning 1940).

On August 20, 1599, the journal of Hoen was behandicht to Petrus Plancius (Pieter Platevoet, 1552–1622). This is now lost, as are the journals of Pieter Jansz Borre, Pieter Gijsbrechtsz, and Willem Jansz. The journals of Willekens and Pietersz were also handed to Plancius (Keuning 1940).

In the Waarachtige Beschryving, Mauritius was evidently identified as Isola de don Galopes (i.e., Rodrigues) and the dodos were called walchstocken. In the English edition (Anon. 1599) we learn that at Warwijck Bay

they tarried 12 daies to refresh themselues, finding in this place great quantity of foules twise as bigge as swans, which they called Walghstocks or Wallowbirdes being very good meat. But finding also aboundance of pidgeons & popiniayes, they disdained any more to eat of those great foules, calling them (as before) Wallowbirds, that is to say, lothsome or fulsome birdes. (Anon. 1599, 16–17)

The description, being only a provisional one, contained some inaccuracies, such as the fact that a dodo was twice as big as a swan. The dodos were named wallowbirdes; the dialect word wallow is related to the Middle Dutch walghe and means tasteless, insipid, or sickly (Simpson and Weiner 1989; see chapter 4).

Jakob Friedlieb provided a German translation:

There it [Mauritius] also has birds of the size of two swans, called Walchstöck or Walchvögel, convenient to eat, but [the sailors] were so greedy after the fat and good pigeons and parrots, of which [there were] a large number and they could obtain enough, that they did not desire the large birds, [and] instead they managed with the pigeons and parrots, also ravens, and fish, of which [there was] such an abundance that two [men could catch] as many fish as five ships could need. (Friedlieb 1599, 68)

The brothers De Bry also published a German translation in their Vierder Theil Der Orientalischen Indien (De Bry and De Bry 1600). The Vierder Theil (or fourth part) was finished in February 1600 (Hamel 1848). The brothers De Bry had never been to Mauritius and gathered all the material for their descriptions secondhand. The text was translated from the Dutch by M. Gotthard Arthus of Dantzig and the De Brys added the plates. In the True description of the last journey that the Dutch made to the East Indies which departed in the spring of the year 1598 and with four ships again luckily arrived home in the month July of the year 1599, they wrote,

There were also many birds found [on] the same [island] that were as large as two swans and were named VValchstocken or VValckvogels, their flesh is good to eat; however, because [on] the same [island] also a great multitude of pigeons and parrots were available, which were fat and good to eat, our people have not nearly sought after those large birds, but had enough of the fat pigeons, and good-tasting parrots, particularly also many ravens, and [also] as a large multitude of fish was available. That two people in a short time could catch enough for all five ships. (De Bry and De Bry 1600, 114–115)

Plate 3, entitled How the Dutch found such oversized tortoises on the island Mauritius, depicts a fanciful rendition of the Dutch on that island. The copper-engraved plate (fig. 1.1), drawn by the brothers De Bry, is based on the accompanying description rather than on illustrations from life - the same was the case for many of their plates. The dodos depicted are actually cassowaries,² apparently copied either from an engraving by Hans Sibmacher or that in Lodewijcksz (1598) (fig. 1.2), and the tortoises and palm trees are mostly guesswork. The important thing was to promote the East Indian voyages and make a saleable work, even if the images were not entirely accurate. A mention of the dodo is included at the bottom of the plate:

1.2. Top: Hans Sibmacher's cassowary (Hulsius 1598). Bottom: Lodewijcksz's (1598) cassowaries.

In the reported island they found a great abundance of pigeons and parrots, which were so tame, that they were able to heap [up] the same, struck dead with cudgels or Pengeln. Furthermore, they also found other strange birds, which they named Walckvögel, one of which they have also brought with them into Holland.

Of importance here is the note that a dodo was brought back to Holland. It has been speculated that this dodo was therefore probably conveyed from Mauritius on board the Vrieslandt, commanded by Jan Kornelisz May, and was probably the same bird as the Prague dodo (see chapter 5). However, this is unlikely. Hume (2006) stated that the De Brys had access to the journals and the ships' captains and crews. However, the text, at least that relating to the dodo, would appear to be taken from the published accounts, as it is similar to that of Anon. (1599).

The plate itself shows numerous inaccuracies, such as tortoises that are too large and having shells of inaccurate pattern and shape, and broom-like palms. The use of cassowaries (which were also reproduced on the title page) and the general inaccuracies of the figure have led several authors to the conclusion that the brothers De Bry were mistaken concerning the importation of a dodo to Holland, and that there was confusion with the cassowary brought back in 1597. Subsequent works also included versions of this engraving, for example Manesson-Mallet (1683; see fig. 1.3).

1.3. Another version of the plate (Manesson-Mallet 1683, fig. xliii.).

The brothers De Bry also published a Latin translation (De Bry and De Bry 1601a). The text was translated from the German by Bilibaldus Strobaeus of Silesia. The Qvarta Pars bears the date August 6, 1601, in the foreword (Oudemans 1917b).

The Rest of the Fleet Returns

The Gelderland and the Zeelandt departed from Bantam on August 19, stopped at St. Helena from December 8 to January 1, 1600, and arrived back on May 19. Finally, the Amsterdam and the Utrecht departed from Bantam on January 21, 1600, stopped at St. Helena from May 17 to 21 and at Ascension from May 30 to 31, and eventually arrived back at Texel in September of that year. Upon their return the crews were able to share their accounts of Mauritius and a more comprehensive report could be published. Only two copies of the 1600 edition, published by Cornelis Claesz (Anon. 1600), remain; these are now in New York (New York Public Library) and Greenwich, London (Caird Library, National Maritime Museum). This edition, which included the first published image of the dodo, was subsequently revised and translated several times. The 1601 Dutch edition was entitled Het tweede Boeck (The second book [Anon. 1601a]).

1.4. Plate 2 from Het tweede Boeck (Anon. 1601a, fol. 7r). The dodo is no. 2.

Use was made of the journals of Van Neck, Van Warwijck, and Jacob van Heemskerk (Van Wissen 1995). The main journal used in the production of the published account was probably that of the Amsterdam, as we have the accounts from the other journals (see below). However, due to discrepancies in the text, it is possible that there were other additional sources used. Keuning (1938–1951) stated that three journals, now lost, were used, and that the author was on board the Gelderland. In the account, we find an update of the accounts mentioned above:

1.5. The dodo from Het tweede Boeck (Anon. 1601a).

The boat came again towards the evening to the Vice-Admiral, and now had brought eight or nine large and very many small birds, which they had seized by hand. (fol. 3v)

Also there are more other [kinds of] birds, that are as large as our swans, with large heads, and on their head a skin as if they had a little cap on their head, they have no wings, then in the place of their wings stand three or four black little feathers, and where their tail should stand they have four or five small curled plumes, that are grayish in color. These birds we named Walchvoghels, in part for that, although we boiled them long, they were very tough for eating, yet the stomach [along] with the breast were very good, from the other reason, that we could obtain a multitude of turtledoves, which to us were relatively appealing of taste. (fol. 6r)

Under the heading "How we lived on the island Mauritius otherwise named Do Cerne" we find the following entry:

2. This bird is as large as a swan, [we have] given him the name Walch voghel, because we caught enough of the tasty doves and other small birds that we cared no more for this bird. (fol. 7r)

Below is a copper-engraved figure of the Dutch on Mauritius, reproduced from Anon. (1600), which depicts the dodo (figs. 1.4 and 1.5). This figure is evidently taken from a sketch in one of the original journals. The unknown artist has created a composite image, probably made partly after sketches in the ships' journals, partly from descriptions, and partly from the artist's imagination. There are many inaccuracies, such as the attitude of the fruit bat and the shape of the tortoises. The dodo, however, looks to be a reasonable representation and resembles that of Clusius (1605; see chapter 4). Oudemans (1917b) believed it was probably drawn from life; in contrast, Grihault (2005b) thought that it was drawn from scraps of hearsay evidence. Fuller (2002) thought that the fact that the dodo is shown near the shore might be of significance, although this is due to the artist's imagination, and Schlegel (1858) considered the illustration to be much more natural and accurate than other dodo pictures of the period. Hachisuka noted that the sketch from Van Neck's journal may not be exceptionally well executed, but shows, nevertheless, two remarkable features, namely a closed beak and an egg-shaped body supported by long legs and speculated, This is doubtless the characteristic pose of the bird during the period between the summer and winter seasons. The dapper stride (all the figures in the cut are represented as in motion) is altogether in harmony with the general figure of the Solitaires (1953, 72). This figure was much copied (see below). A version, after that of the De Brys, was even used to represent St. Losie, Madagascar, in an edition of Bontekoe's voyage (Bontekoe n.d.).

Later in the account, the description of the dodo is expanded:

2. Is a bird which is called Walg-vogel upright as large as a swan, having a round rump, with two or three curled feathers thereupon, they have no wings, in place of them three or four black small feathers stand, of these [birds] we have caught a portion with turtledoves and other birds, that our companions caught first [when they] went on land with sloops to look for the deepest fresh rivers, and [to ascertain] if our ships may put in therein, during which [time] they had caught these [birds], and how with great joy [came] again on board, shared out to each ship some of their roast game that they had caught, where after we went to the harbor the next day, and took in each ship one of these companions [who] had been on land before, to be a pilot. We have cooked this bird, but it was so tough that we could not cook it done, but had to eat it half-done. As soon as we were in the harbor our Vice-Admiral sent us with some people in the sloop onto the land, to see if there were any people [there]on, but [we] have learned of no people, rather a great multitude of turtledoves and other birds, that we with a great multitude [i.e., that a great many of us] struck dead with sticks and caught, because also then no people lived there and made them afraid, so they were not afraid of us, but remained sitting, and let them[selves] be smitten dead. In summation, it is a land full of fish and fowl, as abundant as any on this voyage that we have found. (fol. 7v)

1.6. The Het tweede Boeck dodo combined with the outline skeleton (see chapter 3).

It is clear from the text that at least two sources were used to produce the above account, as the main text mentions the tail having "four or five small curled plumes [pluymkens]," whereas the caption for figure 2 mentions only "two or three curled feathers [veertgiens]. Hachisuka, however, thought that the obscurity of some of the expressions in the earliest account of this voyage…may be due to the fact that many notes were added either by the original compiler after he had returned to Holland, or by the publisher (1953, 49). However, there is no evidence that the publisher embellished the descriptions of the dodo. Staub considered the description to describe the dodo in its gaunt" phase (1996, see chapter 6).

The above account of the dodo was copied many times and used by subsequent authors - those who had been to Mauritius and those who had not. The dodo had become an object of fascination, which was heightened by the description and figure of it. Translations were published in English, French, German, and Latin. The text was translated into English by William Walker (Anon. 1601c). A French edition also soon appeared (Anon. 1601b). Here it was stated,

These birds were named by us birds of nausea, partly because they needed so long to cook, were very tough, [and] in addition, they punished the stomach & breast, partly because we had enough turtledoves, which were much more delicate & tasty. (Anon. 1601b, foll. 2v, 3r)

Camus stated that the French edition is of a barbarian, half-Latin, half-Dutch style; a multitude of misprints make it still more deformed (1802, 214). Figure 2 from Het tweede Boeck was reprinted, and in the caption the text was altered slightly, so that the dodo was stated to be similar (a l'instar) to a swan.

The brothers De Bry published a German translation of the account, in part 5 of the Orientalischen Indien (De Bry and De Bry 1601b). The text was translated from the Dutch by Gotthard Arthus. The copper-engraved title page shows a pair of dodos on the upper left and upper right sides, standing on pedestals (figs. 1.7 and 1.9).

Oudemans (1917b) considered these figures of the De Brys to be probably female and to represent the round form. Furthermore, he thought that these dodos (1601b, 1601c) were copies from original drawings in the journals of Van Neck, drawn from life. This assumption was reached from the numerous differences between the figure in Het tweede Boeck and De Bry's title plate and the attitude of the neck and feet being too natural. However, the figures on title page of De Bry's works were almost certainly drawn after the figure in Het tweede Boeck, perhaps modified using the accompanying description, for example the round, almost spherical body (however, the nostril is placed in the correct position, a feature not very clear from the Het tweede Boeck figure). The bat in the top center of the plate was drawn after the same source as that in Het tweede Boeck and is almost identical to it. The same is true of the tortoises at the bottom corners.

The copper-engraved plates bear the introduction, By Iohan Theodor and Iohan Israel de Bry, brothers. Published at Franckfurt am Mayn, by Matthæum Becker. Plate 1 shows Warwijck Bay: Depiction of the Island Do Cerne otherwise named Mauritius. Plate 2 includes the dodo (fig. 1.8) and underneath is this caption:

1.7. Dodos from the title page of De Bry and De Bry (1601c, Latin edition, with German title page, 1601b).

2. This is a bird, called by the Dutch Walg Vogel, is of the size of a swan, with a thick head, in place of the wings has only 3 or 4. quills, the body is round, in place of the tail are only 3 or 4. crinkled small feathers. These they cooked, but they were unpleasant to eat.

Obviously, there has been a change in the text, as the caption for plate 2 mentions that the tail has three or four plumes, whereas Het tweede Boeck and its subsequent translations mention only two or three. The plate has also been reversed and altered by the De Brys in several details, one of which is that the beak of the dodo, rather than its head, lies in front of the trunk of the palm tree, as seen in Het tweede Boeck.

The brothers De Bry went on to publish a Latin edition of part 5, the Qvinta Pars (De Bry and De Bry 1601c), which bears the details Frankfurt am Main, August 20, 1601, in the foreword (Millies 1868). The title page also shows dodos, as in the German edition (fig. 1.9). The text was translated from the German of Gotthart Artus by Bilibaldus Strobaeus. In the text, four or five tail plumes have become "a few curved delicate feathers [pennæ]. It was also noted that the dodos bellies & breasts tasted pleasant & were easy to masticate" (De Bry and De Bry 1601c, 7).

The true and accurate plates were engraved in copper with attentive industry and diligence by the De Bry brothers. Plate 2 is identical to that of the German edition and the text below the plate mentions,

Its body is round, almost spherical. The tail is lacking, in which place four curled feathers are seen.

1.8. Dodos from other editions of the Het tweede Boeck plate. Left: De Bry and De Bry (1601b, pl. 2). Middle: Ins. De Cerne a. Nostratibus Mauritius Nominata, 1651. Right: Hulsius (1608).

1.9. Title page of the Latin edition (De Bry and De Bry 1601c).

The four curled tail feathers of the German edition are repeated here also.

A copy of one of the dodos from the brothers De Bry's work (fig. 1.10) is one of four dodos (Brial 2006; see also chapter 4), marginal illustrations, in the parchment codex Officium Beatae Mariae Virginis housed in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence (Banco Rari 66). These images are undated, but according to the tabulae temporaria the work was begun c. 1703 and finished c. 1730 (Arturo Valledor de Lozoya, pers. comm., September 11, 2009). At least four artists painted the many illustrations. Oudemans (1917b) dated the two dodo images to possibly around 1710. The work probably belonged to Franz Stephan of Lorraine and thence passed into the Habsburg line. The dodo images themselves were rediscovered by Sebastian Killermann during Easter 1913 (Killermann 1915). The De Bry dodo is colored red with white wings and tail (Killermann 1915). Although the image has been dated to the early eighteenth century, Oudemans (1917b) thought that it was a copy of a much older picture and considered the possibility that the original from which the brothers De Bry copied their title-page dodos from was in Italy. Hachisuka (1953) thought that if the Florentine sketches were copies of older works then they must have been from specimens brought to Genoa, possibly in 1634. These suggestions are almost certainly incorrect.

1.10. Dodos from the Florence Codex. Left: after De Bry and De Bry. Right: The Dodo of Florence (Oudemans 1917b, pl. iv, fig. 7; pl. ii, fig. 3 [respectively]).

The compilation Begin ende Voortgangh (Commelin 1646) reused the plates of Het tweede Boeck, although changing them slightly (removing the caption No2 and adding n. 3).

An additional German edition of Van Neck's account was published in Nüremberg by Levinus Hulsius. In it he stated,

where the tail should stand, they have 4. or 5. small bent plumes…. The stomach was, together with the breast, almost good. (1602, 14).

A second German edition by Hulsius was published in Frankfurt (Hulsius 1605). The bottom figure of the plate opposite page 12 shows another variation of the Het tweede Boeck plate (fig. 1.11).

A later edition of Van Neck's account (Saeghman 1663) further confuses the dodo-cassowary issue by illustrating a cassowary accompanying the text relating to the dodo. Van Neck's account was used for many later descriptions, including that of John Ogilby (1670). As the text was copied so changes crept in; for example, Ogilby stated that the longer the flesh was boiled the tougher it became.

The published accounts of these first eyewitnesses of the dodo were much plagiarized, as seen above, and had much influence on later descriptions. It is difficult in many cases to determine which parts of subsequent descriptions are original and the degree of influence and copying from the published accounts of Van Warwijck's visit to Mauritius.

The handwritten journals of other captains and sailors supplement the published accounts. These are preserved in the Algemeen Rijsarchief in The Hague, in the Archief van de Compagnieën op Oost-Indië 1594–1603. Unfortunately, however, the three main journals upon which Het tweede Boeck is based are not preserved (Keuning 1938–1951; Van Wissen 1995). Of the ships that visited Mauritius in 1598 only the journals of the Gelderland, the Utrecht, the Zeelandt, and the Vrieslandt are extant; that of the Amsterdam is lost. It is possible that the journal of the Amsterdam contained sketches of the dodo that were the originals for the published images in Het tweede Boeck and Clusius (1605).

1.11. Hulsius's version of the plate (Hulsius 1608).

The journal of Jacob van Heemskerk (Journaal 51), kept on the Gelderland from May 1, 1598 to May 19, 1600, records in the entry for October 1,

There is a sort of bird as large as a goose, having the body of an ostrich, the feet of an eagle, with a very large beak like a…bird, with little feathers over the body, the wings of the size of [those of] a teal, very fat, when plucked apparently very good, yet tough skinned; I have said of the size of a goose, larger than a swan. (De Jonge 1864, 393)

Van Heemskerk seemingly had difficulty in thinking of a familiar bird with a beak of comparable size. In the Journal of steersman Heyndrick Dirrecksen Jolinck (Journaal 60; journal kept May 1, 1598-August 14, 1600), kept on the Vrieslandt (and from January 8, 1599, on the Amsterdam), the entry for September 20 reads,

Furthermore, we have found large birds, having wings as large as [those of] a dove, so that they cannot fly and are named penguins by the Portuguese. These afore-mentioned birds have a stomach so large that 2 men can make a delicious meal and is also the best-tasting [part] that there is of the bird. (fol. 46; Keuning 1938–1951, 5(1):62)

Here we have an important piece of information: the Portuguese called them penguins. Jolinck went to Portugal when he was 17 or 18 and learned Portuguese (Jolink 2006). However, the Portuguese referred to the Cape Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) as Sotilicayros (see chapter 4). The use of the name penguins by Jolinck was suggested by Hume (2006) to be derived from the Portuguese pinion, clipped wings. This is, however, unlikely; the name penguin was originally applied to the Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis) and only later became confused with its southern counterparts. Jolinck may have heard that the Portuguese had encountered large flightless birds (true penguins) on their voyages and later, when on Mauritius, assumed that they were the same - and, as a result, called the dodo a penguin (see chapter 4). Indeed, at least some of the sailors were probably familiar with the Great Auk from previous voyages to the north.

The journal of Reyer Cornelisz (Journaal 62; kept May 1, 1598-August 19, 1600), kept on the Utrecht, notes in the entry for September 19 that they

brought many large birds [on board] ship [which] were like the penguins, but they were as much as two times as large as penguins; these cannot fly subsequently [as they] have small wings without feathers and they went upright on their feet as though they were a human yet they [were] reasonable of taste yet tough and [the island was] also overflowing [with] many doves and parrots, those were so tame that one struck them dead with sticks; this occurred [on the] evening [of the] fair [kermijs]. (fol. 28; Keuning 1938–1951, 5(2):29)

Again, we find the mention of penguins. In the journal of Philips Grimmaert, ship's carpenter (or steersman) on the Zeelandt (Journaal 54; kept May 1, 1598-April 30, 1600), we read that:

Here were also large birds which were as large as lambs which we also struck dead and ate; we called them doedersen. (Keuning 1938–1951, 4:170)

Here we also have another name for the dodo (see chapter 4). Thus, the description and image of this striking bird was established in the culture of the Europeans.

Cermes Gaensen: The Journals of the Gelderland

The fleet of Wolfert Harmansz, the Vijfde Schipvaart, departed from Texel on April 23, 1601. The fleet consisted of three large ships: the flagship Gelderland, the Zeelandt, and the Utrecht and two smaller vessels: the Duyfje and the Wachter. On September 20 the fleet was at Rodrigues, which they named Kermiseiland (Fair Island) after the Amsterdam Fair (Moree 2001; see chapter 2). On September 26 the fleet was in sight of Mauritius and Harmansz decided to reprovision there. They stayed at Mauritius from September 27 to October 20 (early summer: Staub 1996).

At around noon on September 27 the fleet anchored off Morne Brabant and sailors disembarked (Barnwell 1948), bringing tidings that there were enough birds.³ The sick were taken ashore and supplies were collected. On September 29 they sailed to Black River Bay for better anchorage (Hume 2003; or, less likely, Tamarin Bay [Pitot 1905]). From October 4 to 11 the Wachter with three boats explored around the coast to the west and circumnavigated the island (Moree 1998). The Duyfje sailed around to Warwijck Bay in order to confirm that the island was indeed Mauritius (Den Hengst 2003). The fleet left Mauritius for Bantam on October 20 (Moree 1998). The Gelderland, the Zeelandt, and the Duyfje arrived in Holland in spring 1603 after having visited the Spice Islands.

An account of the voyage was published in 1646 (Commelin 1646), but no mention of the dodo was made.

The two-volume MS journal kept on the flagship Gelderland is held in the Archief van de Compagnieën op Oost-Indië 1594–1603, in the Algemeen Rijsarchief, The Hague, number 1.04.01, inventory numbers 135 and 136 (Bijlsma 1936). It is bound in vellum, and handwritten with accompanying illustrations (Den Hengst 2003). The journal, with the title "Journal or day-register beginning 22 April Anno 1601 on the ship Gelderlandt," belongs to the smaller journals from the period of the Voorcompagnieën, in contrast to the numerous ship's journals of the Tweede Schipvaart (Moree 2001). It was kept from April 22, 1601, to April 14, 1603. The first volume, the account of the voyage, bears the words Dorscher 1598 on the cover. It contains seven pages of bird drawings and the account of the voyage by Symon Jacobsz (with additions by Harmansz [Van Hoof 1995]). The two volumes were originally intended for the ships Dorscher and Mayer and were reused. Several hands are evident in the journal (Fuller 2002); it was probably written, at least in part, by Jacobsz, although some sections are in the handwriting of Harmansz (Van Hoof 1995). This volume also contains sketches of tortoises and fish. The second volume bears the words Mayer 1598 on the cover and contains only charts and sketches. The landscapes and charts are signed by Joris Joostensz Laerle and Symon Jacobsz. There was almost certainly a third volume, containing notes on the illustrations (P. Floore [see Hume 2003]); this may have been used as a reference for others in preparing voyages and as such became lost (Hume 2003). The two volumes may have originally been Laerle's sketchbooks and were later used for the journal (P. Moree [see Hume 2003]).

In cataloging the manuscript collection of the Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente, Rotterdam, in 1868, the Leiden librarian Pieter Anton Tiele rediscovered the two volumes, formerly lost,⁴ and persuaded the directors to cede them to the Algemeen Rijksarchief (although, according to a letter of April 26, 1872, written by the librarian, it was not until 1872 that they were transferred: Van Hoof 1995).⁵

Jan Hendrick Hessels, a library assistant of the University of Cambridge, had been shown the Gelderland journal, including the dodo sketches and, in the summer of 1868, he informed Alfred Newton at Cambridge. Newton informed Hermann Schlegel, who was already aware of the work and its drawings and was preparing a short article on it (Schlegel 1873). At this time Newton believed the journals to belong to a library in Utrecht (Newton 1875). Newton was careful not to interefere with Schlegel's intention and so only published a short notice (Newton 1868c; 1875, 349). Schlegel wrote, I propose to publish a small series of new figures of this bird [the dodo] (1873, 4). Schlegel, however, died in 1884, before he had completed his article, although his collection of drawings of the dodo (including the tracings) passed to Alfred Newton (Newton and Gadow 1896). In April 1875 Alphonse Milne-Edwards sent some tracings of the sketches, made during a visit to Leiden, to Newton: these Newton exhibited at a meeting of the ZSL in the same year (Newton 1875; Renshaw 1937); they are now in the UMZC. Later, Newton also exhibited tracings of the dodo sketches made by Schlegel, at the Philosophical Library during the Fourth International Ornithological Congress in London on June 20, 1905 (Newton 1907). These tracings are also to be found at Cambridge (Hachisuka 1953). For some time Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans sought the Gelderland journals. He contacted Eduard Daniel van Oort, director of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie in Leiden, but was informed that the tracings were no longer in the museum. Schlegel's library had been sold in 1884 by the firm E. J. Brill; in the catalog the sketches were under no. 36*: Zeichnungen u[nd] Studien ausgestorbener Vögel von dem Masacarenen. En portefeuille. They were sold to the firm Quaritch in London (Oudemans 1917b, 46). Oudemans (1918b) communicated that a study of the journals had been made, which would hopefully soon be published; unfortunately, this never happened.⁶

Albert Pitot (1905) published copies of the dodo sketches from the Doyen Papers of the RSASM (fig. 1.12).⁷ Pitot had obtained the images from tracings of the dodo sketches made by Léopold Estourgies on thin oiled paper from the originals between 1860 and 1870 for Charles Doyen. In the case of the dead dodo the tracing is rather inaccurate, joining the head of one sketch to the body of another (figs. 1.13 and 1.17). From these tracings, Staub (1993, 15) stated that the dodo on fol. 64r seems to have started moulting with the related loss of its beak tip-cap, and that the others were probably juveniles. Renshaw (1931) thought that the dodos were male, due to the long hooks to their bills. There is little support for either supposition.

In 1991 Boudewijn Büch informed Andrew Kitchener that the original dodo sketches had been rediscovered at The Hague (Kitchener 1993b); these original images of the dodo were published for the first time by Kitchener (1993a).

The sketches of the dodo are around halfway through the first volume: ink sketches partly and fully finished, with pencil sketches underlying the ink. The first sketch depicts a dead dodo (foll. 63v, 64r; figs. 1.13, 1.14, and 1.17), unfinished, in pencil with the head augmented in ink (figure 135.31 of Moree 2001). It was drawn from a dead, or stunned, bird laid out in front of the artist. The sketch suggests that the artist had moved the body and drawn it in different positions. Some previous authors have mistakenly described this bird as a running dodo (e.g., Tuijn 1969; Staub 1993).

Following this are sketches of four dodos (foll. 64v, 65r; figures 135.32 and 135.33 of Moree 2001; figs. 1.15–1.19) in pencil and finished in ink. These