Essay on the Theory of the Earth

by baron Georges Cuvier

Caylus, in his Collection of Antiquities, vol. vi. pl. xl. fig. 1., gives a representation of the mummy of an ibis, the height of which, with its bandages, is only one foot seven inches four lines, although he says expressly that the bird was placed upon its feet with the head straight out, and that it had no part inflected in its embalment.

Hasselquist, who took a small white and black heron for the ibis, gives, as his principal reason, that the size of this bird, which is that of a crow, corresponds very well with that of the mummies of the ibis[351]. How, then, could Linnæus have given the name of ibis to a bird as large as a stork? How, especially, could he have considered this bird to be the same as the Ardea ibis of Hasselquist, which, besides its smallness, had the beak straight? And how has this latter error of synonymy been preserved to this very day in the Systema Naturæ?

A short time after this examination, which was made in the presence of M. Fourcroy, M. Olivier had the politeness to shew us the bones which he had taken from two mummies of the ibis, and to open along with us two others. These bones were found similar to those of Colonel Grobert’s mummies; one of the four only was smaller, but it was easy to judge by the epiphyses that it had belonged to a young individual.

The only figure of the beak of an embalmed ibis, which does not entirely agree with the objects which we have had under our eyes, is that of Edwards (pl. cv.); it is a ninth part larger, and yet we do not doubt its accuracy, for M. Olivier shewed us also a beak an eighth or a ninth longer than the others, or in the proportion of 180 to 165, which had been equally taken from a mummy. This beak only shews that there were among the ibises individuals larger than others; but it proves nothing in favour of the tantalus, for it has not at all the form of the beak of that animal. Its beak is perfectly similar to that of the curlews; and besides, the beak of the tantalus is a third longer than that of our largest embalmed ibises, and two-fifths longer than that of the smallest.

We have ascertained further, that similar variations with regard to the size of the beak exist in our European curlews, according to the age and sex. They are still more strongly marked in the green curlew of Italy, and in our godwits; and this variation appears to be a property common to most of the species of the family of scolopaceous birds.

Lastly, our naturalists returned from the expedition to Egypt with a rich harvest of objects, as well ancient as recent. My learned friend M. Geoffroy St Hilaire, in particular, had occupied himself with the greatest care in collecting mummies of all descriptions, and had brought with him a great number of those of the ibis, both from Saccara and Thebes.

The former were in the same state as those which M. Grobert had brought, that is to say, their bones had undergone a sort of half burning, and were without consistence; they broke on the slightest touch, and it was very difficult to obtain any entire, and still more so to detach them for the purpose of making a skeleton.

The bones of those brought from Thebes were much better preserved, either on account of the greater heat of the climate, or from the more efficacious means employed for their preparation; and M. Geoffroy having sacrificed some of them to me, M. Rousseau, my assistant, succeeded, by dint of patience and address, and by the employment of ingenious and delicate methods of procedure, in making up an entire skeleton, by stripping all the bones, and connecting them with a very fine wire. This skeleton is deposited in the anatomical galleries of the museum, of which it forms one of the most beautiful ornaments, and we have represented it in Pl. iv.

It is likely that this mummy must have been that of a bird kept in a state of domesticity in the temples, for its left humerus has been broken and joined again. It is probable that a wild bird, whose wing had been broken, would have perished before it had healed, from its being unable to pursue its prey, or to escape from its enemies.

This skeleton puts it in our power to determine, without any uncertainty, the characters and proportions of the bird. We see clearly that it was in all points a true curlew, a little larger than the common curlew of Europe, but having the beak thicker and shorter. The following is a comparative table of the dimensions of the two birds, taken, for the ibis, from the skeleton of the mummy of Thebes, and for the curlew, from a skeleton which previously existed in our anatomical galleries. We have added those of parts of the Saccara ibises, which we succeeded in obtaining entire.