The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History

Introduction: A Melancholy Visage

xi Introduction: A Melancholy Visage I 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) 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 Intro.1. The Mascarene Islands. Introduction xii 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. 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...