MYSTERY OF THE MOA

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 17, 20 July 1931, Page 11

MYSTERY OF THE MOA

MISAPPRENHENSIONS.

(To,the Editor.)

.Sir,—After.the prominence you so generously gave to the review- of. my book,' "The Mystery of the, Moa," in your, issue of Saturday evening, it would ill becoihe me to write in a.spirit of complaint. I shall not-do this, but will gratefully accept your effort to bring under, the notice of your readers my contribution to a phase of the natural - history ;of our country. There: are, however, several points in the 'review to -which I may be permitted to draw attention without in any way diluting my thankfulness to you or to your reviewer for a conscientious effort to master the details of the book. In the course of his article the reviewer says:—"The moa appears to have been first mentioned in print in Lee and Kendall's 'Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zeai land,' which was published by the Church 'Missionary Society in 1820." This is a misapprehension. The moa as I have been discussing it, is not referred to in this early work. The. term moa. is mentioned, but is not specifically associated with the bird. Kendall and Lore give the meaning of the word as "A stone, also the name, of a person, and a place." The fact that the Maori chiefs Hongi Hika and Waikato, who gave, Kendall and Lee much of their information, did Hot associate, the word "moa" with the bird, was one, of the factors which buttressed :Sir Julias yon Haast in his conclusion that the Maori knew nothing of the moa because it was extinct before their arrival. (See page 45.) * The merits of that opinion I discuss in Note 131. It is because Kendall and Lee do not associate the term moa with the bird that I have attributed its first reference in our literature to J. S. Polack, who, in 1938, was undoubtedly, if vaguely, referring in his book,- ".New Zealand," to the remains of the -aVian giant which we now call, the moa. Later your ■reviewer says: ."In 1839. the bird was introduced to science when Dr..Rule called on Professor Owen with a fragment.of a bone which the Maoris, who gave it him, believed to have belonged to a bird of the eagle kind, called' by them A Movie." There also is a misapprehension " here. Dr. Kule did not receive his bone from, the' Maori, and to say so cuts out of the story of the moa the romantic figure of J. Williams Harris, whom I would like to restore to'his proper .place. The episode of how Harris took the bone to Sydney, arid there presented it to Dr. Rule, together with some of its quaint traditions, is one of the': most picturesque in the book, and being new to the literature of the subject it is'a'pity''that"if should hecome obscured by a misunderstanding. It is, however, to the final paragraph o£ your reviewer's article to which I particularly -wish to refer. In discussing the theories surrounding the presence of largo numbers of moa skeletons in. the beds o£ old swamps, lie discounts my conclusion that the birds were driven there by pressure of fire. He says: "Wo caimot call the theory convincing," and. then disposes- of the matter by saying: •'There still seems to be room for a Conan Doyle or an H. G. Wells to mukc the winning guess." This language, I consider, unfortunate, because whatever solution 'of the mystery ultimately finds universal favour, it will not be arrived at by a process of guessing. It will bo achieved by a course of logical reasoning based upon the known facts, or possibly upon some facts as yet undiscovered. I have reasoned out the problem as I see it, in my own way, .but if the wizard intellect o£ H. G. Wells; can do better, the subject is as available to him as it has. been to me.' All I" can say is that I am keeping an open mind'about it, but I fail to see,'why, when'we havel certain evidence leading us to certain conclusions, wo -should reject that: evidence and relapse into a state of mental negation, just because we are not able, to carry conviction to everyone. We are. entitled to go forward with our _ .theories wherever we think we can see.a rift in the clouds, but we must walk warily and reverently. Although I' have written some 350 pages about the moa, I still consider myself more a student than a teacher m the subject, and if within a reasonable-penod there ' should arise one blessed with a clearer vision, with a broader outlook, and a deeper insight into the mystery, of. the moa than I have- had, then I will be prepared to sit at the feet of this modern Gamaliel and learn from him the-historical truth which your reviewer evidently believes I have missed.- Until then, what 1 have written I have' written.—l am, etc., ' '. . T.: LINDSAY BUICK. Wellington, 20th July,' 1931., . :