INTERPRETING THE WETA

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 123, 27 May 1933, Page 12

INTERPRETING THE WETA

Few natural history discussions have !been more. entertaining than that of the weta. Mr. Johannes C. Andersen's way of writing is largely responsible for this result; but, in addition, the weta himself is full of surprises, being far from what he seems. Without attempting to .separ rate the facts from the probable facts and tho possible facts—that is, to separate the pToven from the likely —we can say that most people now find their knowledge extended and their outlook widened. And the outlook is not less important than the knowledge, for, even if a reader be still unconvinced on the question whether a weta bores, he will at least see the importance of riot jumping to such conclusions as that ,lho prcr sence "of. a creature in a hole in a tree is proof that this creature made the hole- It is-possible that, right through- the whole region of-wild life, unwarranted conclusions are being jumped to; and it is clear that what observers need is what may be called, for the sake pf convenience, the research approach. Particularly do the wild life; organisations need it, and if the acclimatisation societies had entrenched themselves more deeply in this field during the last half-century;, their position would be very much stronger than it is today. Knowledge is power, and immense possibilities, lie behind research in wild life. The history, of scientific research, and of the application of it, is that the raw scientific fact of today may be a key to economic achievement tomorrow. Forest economics has a future, and today seems to be represented, on its living side, only by the opossum. Even concerning that economically-import-ant animal research is very backward* and policies are being dictated less by facts and foresight than by guesses and money, hunger. The pleasure that one has in reading the great Fabre, a scientific populariser of Nature, is felt again in reading Mr. Andersen on the weta. Criminal detectives might be pardoned for testing their wits on the great bore-hole mystery (who drove the tunnel?) and a politician in a tight place might well study, the question: How does' the'wtta turn in his bore? One gentleman, who has not contributed in writing to' the weta symposium, .tells us of a weta that entered the' union end of his garden hose (left lying coiled on the ground) and travelled forty feet to the nozzle end.' Apparently this weta could not or would not'turn, and, as he could not or would not pass whole through, the nozzle, had to be extracted in a more or -less dismembered condition —all, of wKich was not the fault of the weta but of leaving a hose* on the ground. Although Mr. Andersen- has disclaimed that he is a defender of the weta, yet his insistence that the male has knightly as well as nightly characteristics may well lift an uglylooking insect on to a plane of higher popular interest. The, very different living ' conditions ' under which the weta is found from time to time naturally suggest the existence of different species, and Mr. Andersen stresses this in answering his correspondents; but classification is a rather difficult -subject, and we will leave it at that. One .point is to be noted—the living creatures and the plants of the older countries have been under'the eye of science for generations, and the biologists and experimentalists and all kinds of allied workers have' tilled the field well. In New Zealand, even after the eminent work of a Darwin medallist in botany, the field is still almost virgin, and great developments await the research approach. Enthusiasm in fact-finding—without a gun and rod bias, and equally without an anti-gun and anti-rod bias— will find its own rewards, philosophic, and material. Of. the. former Mr. Andersen is a brilliant exponent.