Editing Dodo (section)

== Description ==
[[File:Dodo size comparison.svg|thumb|alt=A diagram comparing the size of a dodo compared to a human. The dodo reaches about to the height of the human knee|Size compared to a human]]

As no complete dodo specimens exist, its external appearance, such as plumage and colouration, is hard to determine.<ref name="Hume2006" /> Illustrations and written accounts of encounters with the dodo between its discovery and its extinction (1598–1662) are the primary evidence for its external appearance.<ref>{{cite book | last = Fuller | first = Errol | author-link = Errol Fuller | year = 2003 | title = The Dodo&nbsp;– Extinction in Paradise | edition = first | publisher = Bunker Hill Publishing Inc. | location = USA | isbn = 978-1-59373-002-4 }} p.&nbsp;48.</ref> According to most representations, the dodo had greyish or brownish [[plumage]], with lighter [[primary feathers]] and a tuft of curly light feathers high on its rear end. The head was grey and naked, the beak green, black and yellow, and the legs were stout and yellowish, with black claws.{{sfn|Fuller|2002|p=45}} A study of the few remaining feathers on the Oxford specimen head showed that they were [[pennaceous]] rather than [[plumaceous]] (downy) and most similar to those of other pigeons.<ref>{{cite journal| doi = 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1989.tb02535.x| last1 = Brom | first1 = T. G.| last2 = Prins | first2 = T. G.| date=June 1989 | title = Microscopic investigation of feather remains from the head of the Oxford dodo, ''Raphus cucullatus''| journal = Journal of Zoology| volume = 218| issue = 2| pages = 233–246}}</ref>

Subfossil remains and remnants of the birds that were brought to Europe in the 17th century show that dodos were very large birds, measuring about {{cvt|62.6|-|75|cm}} in height.{{sfn|Parish|2013|pp=265–282}}<ref name=Hume2017/> The bird was [[sexually dimorphic]]; males were larger and had proportionally longer beaks. Weight estimates have varied from study to study. In 1993, [[Bradley C. Livezey]] proposed that males would have weighed {{cvt|21|kg}} and females {{cvt|17|kg}}.<ref name=Livezey1993>{{cite journal| doi = 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1993.tb02686.x| last = Livezey| first = B. C.| year = 1993| title = An Ecomorphological Review of the Dodo (''Raphus cucullatus'') and Solitaire (''Pezophaps solitaria''), Flightless Columbiformes of the Mascarene Islands| journal = Journal of Zoology| volume = 230| issue = 2| pages = 247–292}}</ref> Also in 1993, Andrew C. Kitchener attributed a high contemporary weight estimate and the roundness of dodos depicted in Europe to these birds having been overfed in captivity; weights in the wild were estimated to have been in the range of {{cvt|10.6|-|17.5|kg}}, and fattened birds could have weighed {{cvt|21.7|-|27.8|kg}}.<ref name=KitchenerAugust1993>{{cite magazine |last=Kitchener |first=A. C. |date=28 August 1993 |title=Justice at last for the dodo |magazine=[[New Scientist]] |page=24 |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918884.300-justice-at-last-for-the-dodo.html |ref={{sfnRef|Kitchener August 1993}} |access-date=26 August 2017 |archive-date=26 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626154703/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918884.300-justice-at-last-for-the-dodo.html |url-status=live }}{{subscription required}}</ref> A 2011 estimate by Angst and colleagues gave an average weight as low as {{cvt|10.2|kg}}.<ref name=Angst2011>{{cite journal| doi= 10.1007/s00114-010-0759-7| last1= Angst | first1= D.| last2= Buffetaut | first2= E.| last3= Abourachid | first3= A.| date=March 2011| title= The end of the fat dodo? A new mass estimate for ''Raphus cucullatus''| journal= Naturwissenschaften| volume= 98| issue= 3| pages= 233–236| pmid= 21240603| ref= {{sfnRef|Angst|Buffetaut|Abourachid March 2011}} |bibcode= 2011NW.....98..233A| s2cid= 29215473 }}</ref> This has also been questioned, and there is still controversy over weight estimates.<ref>{{cite journal| doi = 10.1007/s00114-011-0771-6| last1 = Louchart | first1 = A.| last2 = Mourer-Chauviré | first2 = C. C. C.| date = April 2011| title = The dodo was not so slim: Leg dimensions and scaling to body mass| journal = Naturwissenschaften| volume = 98| issue = 4| pages = 357–358; discussion 358–360| pmid = 21380621|bibcode = 2011NW.....98..357L | s2cid = 9126864 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| doi= 10.1007/s00114-011-0772-5| last1= Angst | first1= D.| last2= Buffetaut | first2= E.| last3= Abourachid | first3= A.| date=April 2011| title= In defence of the slim dodo: A reply to Louchart and Mourer-Chauviré| journal= Naturwissenschaften| volume= 98| issue= 4| pages= 359–360| ref= {{sfnRef|Angst|Buffetaut|Abourachid April 2011}} |bibcode= 2011NW.....98..359A| s2cid= 30903508 }}</ref> A 2016 study estimated the weight at {{cvt|10.6|to|14.3|kg}}, based on [[CT scans]] of composite skeletons.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brassey |first1=C. A. |last2= O'Mahoney |first2= T. G. |last3=Kitchener |first3= A. C. |last4=Manning |first4=P. L. |last5=Sellers |first5= W. I. |year=2016 |title=Convex-hull mass estimates of the dodo (''Raphus cucullatus''): application of a CT-based mass estimation technique |pmid=26788418 |pmc=4715441 |journal=PeerJ |volume=4 |at=e1432 |doi=10.7717/peerj.1432 |ref={{sfnRef|Brassey et al.|2016}} |doi-access=free }}</ref> It has also been suggested that the weight depended on the season, and that individuals were fat during cool seasons, but less so during hot.<ref name=Hume2017>{{cite book | last1 = Hume | first1 = J. P. | author-link1 = Julian Pender Hume | year = 2017 | title = Extinct Birds | publisher = Christopher Helm | location = London | isbn = 978-1-4729-3744-5 | pages = 155–158}}</ref>

===Skeleton===
[[File:Oxford Dodo skull.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Lithographs of the dodo skull at the Oxford Museum|1848 lithographs of the Oxford dodo's skull in multiple views]]

The skull of the dodo differed much from those of other pigeons, especially in being more robust, the bill having a hooked tip, and in having a short cranium compared to the jaws. The upper bill was nearly twice as long as the cranium, which was short compared to those of its closest pigeon relatives. The openings of the bony nostrils were elongated along the length of the beak, and they contained no bony septum. The cranium (excluding the beak) was wider than it was long, and the [[frontal bone]] formed a dome-shape, with the highest point above the hind part of the eye sockets. The skull sloped downwards at the back. The eye sockets occupied much of the hind part of the skull. The [[sclerotic rings]] inside the eye were formed by eleven ossicles (small bones), similar to the amount in other pigeons. The mandible was slightly curved, and each half had a single [[Fenestra (anatomy)|fenestra]] (opening), as in other pigeons.<ref name=ClaessensMeijer2016/>

[[File:Raphus and Pezophaps.jpg|thumb|alt=A comparison between the morphologies of the dodo and its closest relative, the Rodrigues solitaire, notable differences include the smaller skull and longer neck of the Rodrigues solitaire|Skeleton of the dodo (left) and its closest relative, the [[Rodrigues solitaire]], not to scale]]
The dodo had about nineteen presynsacral vertebrae (those of the neck and [[thorax]], including three fused into a [[notarium]]), sixteen [[synsacral]] vertebrae (those of the [[lumbar region]] and [[sacrum]]), six free tail (caudal) vertebrae, and a [[pygostyle]]. The neck had well-developed areas for muscle and ligament attachment, probably to support the heavy skull and beak. On each side, it had six ribs, four of which articulated with the [[sternum]] through sternal ribs. The sternum was large, but small in relation to the body compared to those of much smaller pigeons that are able to fly. The sternum was highly [[Skeletal pneumaticity|pneumatic]], broad, and relatively thick in cross-section. The bones of the [[pectoral girdle]], shoulder blades, and wing bones were reduced in size compared to those of flighted pigeon, and were more gracile compared to those of the Rodrigues solitaire, but none of the individual skeletal components had disappeared. The [[carpometacarpus]] of the dodo was more robust than that of the solitaire, however. The pelvis was wider than that of the solitaire and other relatives, yet was comparable to the proportions in some smaller, flighted pigeons. Most of the leg bones were more robust than those of extant pigeons and the solitaire, but the length proportions were little different.<ref name=ClaessensMeijer2016/>

Many of the skeletal features that distinguish the dodo and the Rodrigues solitaire, its closest relative, from other pigeons have been attributed to their flightlessness. The pelvic elements were thicker than those of flighted pigeons to support the higher weight, and the [[pectoralis major muscle|pectoral]] region and the small wings were [[neoteny|paedomorphic]], meaning that they were underdeveloped and retained juvenile features. The skull, trunk and [[pelvic]] limbs were [[peramorphic]], meaning that they changed considerably with age. The dodo shared several other traits with the Rodrigues solitaire, such as features of the skull, pelvis, and sternum, as well as their large size. It differed in other aspects, such as being more robust and shorter than the solitaire, having a larger skull and beak, a rounded [[skull roof]], and smaller [[orbits]]. The dodo's neck and legs were proportionally shorter, and it did not possess an equivalent to the knob present on the solitaire's wrists.<ref name=Livezey1993/>

=== Contemporary descriptions ===

{{multiple image
| direction = horizontal
|align = right
|total_width = 350
|image1 = DodoMansur.jpg
|alt1 = Painting of a dodo among native Indian birds

|image2 = Saftleven dodo.jpg
|alt2 = Painting of a dodo head from the chest up

|footer = Dodo among birds in a Mughal Indian menagerie (left), by [[Ustad Mansur]], {{circa|lk=no|1625}}; perhaps the most accurate depiction of a live dodo, and dodo head (right) by [[Cornelis Saftleven]] from 1638, probably the last original depiction of the species
}}

Most contemporary descriptions of the dodo are found in [[ship's logs]] and journals of the Dutch East India Company vessels that docked in Mauritius when the [[Dutch Empire]] ruled the island. These records were used as guides for future voyages.<ref name=Hume2012/> Few contemporary accounts are reliable, as many seem to be based on earlier accounts, and none were written by scientists.<ref name=Hume2006/> One of the earliest accounts, from van Warwijck's 1598 journal, describes the bird as follows:

{{quotation |Blue parrots are very numerous there, as well as other birds; among which are a kind, conspicuous for their size, larger than our swans, with huge heads only half covered with skin as if clothed with a hood. These birds lack wings, in the place of which 3 or 4 blackish feathers protrude. The tail consists of a few soft incurved feathers, which are ash coloured. These we used to call 'Walghvogel', for the reason that the longer and oftener they were cooked, the less soft and more insipid eating they became. Nevertheless their belly and breast were of a pleasant flavour and easily masticated.<ref>{{cite book | last = Rothschild | first = Walter | author-link = Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild | year = 1907 | title = Extinct Birds | publisher = Hutchinson & Co | location = London | url = https://archive.org/stream/extinctbirdsatte00roth#page/172/mode/2up }} p.&nbsp;172.</ref>}}
One of the most detailed descriptions is by Herbert in ''A Relation of Some Yeares Travaille into Afrique and the Greater Asia'' from 1634:
{{quotation|First here only and in Dygarrois [Rodrigues] is generated the Dodo, which for shape and rareness may antagonize the [[Phoenix (mythology)|Phoenix]] of Arabia: her body is round and fat, few weigh less than fifty pound. It is reputed more for wonder than for food, greasie stomackes may seeke after them, but to the delicate they are offensive and of no nourishment. Her visage darts forth melancholy, as sensible of Nature's injurie in framing so great a body to be guided with complementall wings, so small and impotent, that they serve only to prove her bird. The halfe of her head is naked seeming couered with a fine vaile, her bill is crooked downwards, in midst is the thrill [nostril], from which part to the end tis a light green, mixed with pale yellow tincture; her eyes are small and like to Diamonds, round and rowling; her clothing downy feathers, her train three small plumes, short and inproportionable, her legs suiting her body, her pounces sharpe, her appetite strong and greedy. Stones and iron are digested, which description will better be conceived in her representation.{{sfn|Fuller|2002|p=62}}}}

=== Contemporary depictions ===
[[File:Dodo (VOC Gelderland, 1602).jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|alt=Several pages of a journal containing sketches of live and dead dodos|left|Compilation of the ''Gelderland'' ship's journal sketches from 1601 of live and recently killed dodos, attributed to Joris Laerle]]

The travel journal of the Dutch ship ''Gelderland'' (1601–1603), rediscovered in the 1860s, contains the only known sketches of living or recently killed specimens drawn on Mauritius. They have been attributed to the professional artist Joris Joostensz Laerle, who also drew other now-extinct Mauritian birds, and to a second, less refined artist.<ref name=Hume2003>{{cite journal| doi = 10.3366/anh.2003.30.1.13| last = Hume | first = J. P.| author-link = Julian Pender Hume| year = 2003| title = The journal of the flagship ''Gelderland''&nbsp;– dodo and other birds on Mauritius 1601| journal = Archives of Natural History| volume = 30| issue = 1| pages = 13–27}}</ref> Apart from these sketches, it is unknown how many of the twenty or so 17th-century illustrations of the dodos were drawn from life or from stuffed specimens, which affects their reliability.<ref name=Hume2006/> Since dodos are otherwise only known from limited physical remains and descriptions, contemporary artworks are important to reconstruct their appearance in life. While there has been an effort since the mid-19th century to list all historical illustrations of dodos, previously unknown depictions continue to be discovered occasionally.<ref name="GermanPaintings">{{cite journal |last1=Teixeira |first1=D. M. |title=The German painter Carl Borromäus Andreas Ruthart (ca. 1630–1703) and some still unregistered images of the extinct dodo, ''Raphus cucullatus'' (Linnaeus, 1758) (Aves, Columbiformes) |journal=Arquivos de Zoologia |date=2019 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=191–200 |issn=2176-7793 |url=https://www.revistas.usp.br/azmz/article/view/159603 |access-date=25 July 2022 |archive-date=25 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220725221046/https://www.revistas.usp.br/azmz/article/view/159603 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The traditional image of the dodo is of a very fat and clumsy bird, but this view may be exaggerated. The general opinion of scientists today is that many old European depictions were based on overfed captive birds or crudely stuffed specimens.<ref>{{cite journal| doi = 10.3366/anh.1993.20.2.279| last = Kitchener | first = A. C.| date=June 1993 | title = On the external appearance of the dodo, ''Raphus cucullatus'' (L, 1758)| journal = Archives of Natural History| volume = 20| issue = 2| pages = 279–301| ref = {{sfnRef|Kitchener June 1993}} }}</ref> It has also been suggested that the images might show dodos with puffed feathers, as part of display behaviour.<ref name=Angst2011/> The Dutch painter [[Roelant Savery]] was the most prolific and influential illustrator of the dodo, having made at least twelve depictions, often showing it in the lower corners. A famous painting of his from 1626, now called ''Edwards's Dodo'' as it was once owned by the ornithologist [[George Edwards (naturalist)|George Edwards]], has since become the standard image of a dodo. It is housed in the [[Natural History Museum, London|Natural History Museum]], London. The image shows a particularly fat bird and is the source for many other dodo illustrations.<ref>{{cite book | last = Mason | first = A. S. | year = 1992 | title = George Edwards: The Bedell and His Birds | publisher = Royal College of Physicians of London | location = London | isbn = 978-1-873240-48-9 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=UjQYrxdHFp0C&q=George+Edwards+savery+dodo&pg=PA47 | access-date = 12 May 2012 | archive-date = 15 March 2023 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230315014512/https://books.google.com/books?id=UjQYrxdHFp0C&q=George+Edwards+savery+dodo&pg=PA47 | url-status = live }} pp.&nbsp;46{{ndash}}49.</ref><ref name="early depiction">{{cite journal |last1=Parish |first1=J. C. |last2=Cheke |first2=A. S. |title=A newly-discovered early depiction of the Dodo (Aves: Columbidae: ''Raphus cucullatus'') by Roelandt Savery, with a note on another previously unnoticed Savery Dodo |journal=Historical Biology |date=2018 |pages=1–10 |doi=10.1080/08912963.2018.1457658|s2cid=89661119 }}</ref>

[[File:Edwards' Dodo.jpg|thumb|alt=Painting of a dodo, with a red parrot on its left side, and a blue one at its right|The famous ''[[George Edwards (naturalist)|Edwards]]'s Dodo'', painted by [[Roelant Savery]] in 1626]]
An Indian [[Mughal painting]] rediscovered in the [[Hermitage Museum]], [[St. Petersburg]], in 1955 shows a dodo along with native Indian birds.<ref>{{cite journal| doi=10.1007/BF01671614| last=Iwanow| first=A.| date=October 1958 | title=An Indian picture of the Dodo| journal=Journal of Ornithology| volume=99| issue=4| pages=438–440| bibcode= 1958JOrn...99..438I| s2cid=23510175}}</ref> It depicts a slimmer, brownish bird, and its discoverer Aleksander Iwanow and British palaeontologist [[Julian Hume]] regarded it as one of the most accurate depictions of the living dodo; the surrounding birds are clearly identifiable and depicted with appropriate colouring.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Dissanayake |first= R. |year= 2004 |title        = What did the dodo look like? |journal= The Biologist |volume= 51 |issue= 3 |pages= 165–168 |url= http://web.mac.com/rajith/rajith/About_Me_files/What%20did%20the%20dodo%20look%20like%3F.PDF |access-date  = 14 September 2011 |url-status = dead |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20110917160155/http://web.mac.com/rajith/rajith/About_Me_files/What%20did%20the%20dodo%20look%20like%3F.PDF |archive-date = 17 September 2011}}</ref> It is believed to be from the 17th century and has been attributed to the [[Mughal painter]] [[Ustad Mansur]]. The bird depicted probably lived in the [[menagerie]] of the [[Mughal Emperor]] [[Jahangir]], located in [[Surat]], where the English traveller [[Peter Mundy]] also claimed to have seen two dodos sometime between 1628 and 1633.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1007/BF01671615|title=Wie hat die Dronte (''Raphus cucullatus'' L.) ausgesehen?|journal=Journal of Ornithology|volume=99|issue=4|pages=441–459|year=1958|last1=Stresemann|first1=Erwin|bibcode= 1958JOrn...99..441S|s2cid=28617863|language=de}}</ref><ref name=Hume2006/> In 2014, another Indian illustration of a dodo was reported, but it was found to be derivative of an 1836 German illustration.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Richon|first1=E. |last2=Winters|first2=R. |title=The intercultural dodo: a drawing from the School of Bundi, Rājasthān |journal=Historical Biology |volume=28 |issue=3 |year=2014 |pages=1–8 |doi= 10.1080/08912963.2014.961450|s2cid=85387209 }}</ref>

All post-1638 depictions appear to be based on earlier images, around the time reports mentioning dodos became rarer. Differences in the depictions led ornithologists such as [[Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans]] and [[Masauji Hachisuka]] to speculate about sexual dimorphism, [[ontogenic]] traits, seasonal variation, and even the existence of different species, but these theories are not accepted today. Because details such as markings of the beak, the form of the tail feathers, and colouration vary from account to account, it is impossible to determine the exact morphology of these features, whether they signal age or sex, or if they even reflect reality.{{sfn|Fuller|2002|pp=76–77}} Hume argued that the nostrils of the living dodo would have been slits, as seen in the ''Gelderland'', [[Cornelis Saftleven]], Savery's [[Crocker Art Gallery]], and Mansur images. According to this claim, the gaping nostrils often seen in paintings indicate that [[taxidermy]] specimens were used as models.<ref name=Hume2006/> Most depictions show that the wings were held in an extended position, unlike flighted pigeons, but similar to [[ratites]] such as the ostrich and [[Kiwi (bird)|kiwi]].<ref name=ClaessensMeijer2016/>