Navigation des Indes Orientales_, fol., 1601. The Tortoise and Dodo in fig. 1, p. 1, of the present work, are taken from the print, p. 3, of the above work and edition. [25] See, especially, Bontekoe’s figure, copied by Strickland, in the title-page and at p. 63 of the above-cited work. [26] Owen, ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ 1866, vol. ii. p. 32. [27] Called “hyosternal” in the Geoffroyan determination of parts of the bird’s sternum. [28] 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. [29] “La Mare aux Songes.” [30] Proc. Zool. Soc. _l. c._ p. 5. [31] Proc, Zool. Soc. _l. c._ p. 6. [32] Zool. Trans. vol. iv. pl. 24. fig. 4. [33] Odontography, pl. 146. fig. 1; Anat. of Vertebrates, vol. ii. p. 439. fig. 296. [34] 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.’ [35] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 51. [36] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. iv. pl. 24. fig. 4. [37] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 65. fig. 3. [38] Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. pl. 65. fig. 1. [39] Ibid. fig. 5. [40] Histoire Naturelle &c., 4to, tom. xiv. “Dégénération des Animaux:” 1760. [41] Philosophie Zoologique, 8vo, 1809, tom. i, chaps. 3, 6, & 7. [42] 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. [43] Strickland and Melville, ‘The Dodo and its Kindred,’ 4to, 1848, p. 34. [44] _Op. cit._ p. 34. [45] 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. [46] 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.)