Wellington Philosophical Society.

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 21, 1888, Unnumbered Page

Wellington Philosophical Society. First Meeting: 13th June, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. New Members.—T. D. McDougal, W. B. Hudson, and A. Boardman.

Second Meeting: 27th June, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. Papers.—1. “On Rabbit-disease in the Wairarapa,” by Coleman Phillips. (Transactions, p. 429.) Mr. John F. McClean, M.R.C.V.S., by permission of the meeting, said that he objected to the wholesale introduction of “rabbit-fluke” as a means of eradicating the pest, on the ground of its being the same

hydatid that caused the disease “sturdy” or “gid” in sheep, and quoted Dr. Cobbold to that effect. That the disease “sturdy” in sheep did prevail in the Wairarapa he was convinced, from inquiries he had made among sheep-owners in that district; though in nearly all cases, from a want of knowledge of the subject, it had not been identified as “sturdy,” but mistaken for “ergot”-poisoning. As a matter of fact, ergot, he said, had little or no action on sheep except during the period of gestation; but in healthy ruminants, when obtained or administered continuously for a considerable period; it would most likely cause sloughing of the hoofs; this, with the exception of general falling-off in condition, being usually the first observable symptom of ergot-poisoning. All the symptoms that had been described to him as due to ergot-poisoning were, as a matter of fact, identical with the symptoms of “sturdy.” Again, as a rabbit-destructor, how did the disease act? In the rabbit we find the hydatid lodged in the connective tissue of the skin and muscles; it grows to the size, perhaps, of an orange, and is said to displace the vital organs to such an extent as to cause death. But this is a very slow process: it takes weeks for the hydatid to grow to even an appreciable size, and does not during this period interfere with the reproductive powers of the rabbit; and when it has grown to a size sufficiently large to cause the displacement of a vital organ, this is not sufficient to cause death. We all know how even men can and do live with their vital organs in all sorts of strange positions, and bunny does not seem less able to do so; in fact, this displacement in the rabbit being so very gradual gives nature a chance of accommodating itself to its altered circumstances. He said he would be inclined to attribute the improvement in the rabbit-pest in the Wairarapa to the shooting, poisoning, and turning-out of the rabbit's natural enemies, which Mr. Coleman Phillips said had taken place, though he would certainly grant that rabbit-fluke, existing as widely as Mr. Phillips had represented it, would necessarily cause a certain mortality; but he believed this mortality would be extremely small, considering the nature of the pest we have to deal with, and urged that the disease had been propagated at far too great a risk to the sheep in the district. Mr. Coleman Phillips, in reply to Mr. McClean, remarked that he did not believe at all that the bladder-worm of the rabbit gave the sheep in the Wairarapa sturdy, or gid. There were not many cases of sturdy, or gid, in the colony. It was a rare complaint amongst sheep, but in the Wairarapa a few sheep had become apparently sturdied from eating ergot. Mr. McClean said the runholders were wrong in thinking that ergot was the cause of this; but Mr. Phillips thought that the runholders were right. He, however, desired to thank Mr. McClean for calling attention to the matter, as he was equally desirous of and interested in keeping diseases away from sheep. Professor Thomas had quoted from Rose in his report, and that gentleman drew from that authority a conclusion quite different from that of Mr. McClean. Bladdery rabbits were not harmful to sheep; and as to human beings, the Norfolk warreners have been in the habit for years past of pricking the bladders, and then sending the rabbits to market in the ordinary way. There were very few cases of hydatid heard of in England, where bladdery rabbits must often be eaten.

Third Meeting: 25th July, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. New Member.—T. H. Robinson.

2.  "On the Natural History of Three Species of Micro-lepidoptera," by G. V. Hudson. (Transactions, p. 189.)

5. Mr. James Wallace gave an interesting account of the recent discovery of manganese upon property near the Wellington-Manawatu Railway Company's line. He stated that a quantity had been sent home for a professional opinion as to its real value. He stated that upon analysis in the Colonial Laboratory the ores yielded, in the case of the oxide, 75 per cent., and of the carbonate, 84 per cent, of manganese. Mr. McKay considered this an important discovery: it occurred in very large blocks, and would no doubt prove of commercial value. Mr. Hughes, who had also visited the locality and seen the deposit, spoke highly of it. He had sent samples to England for expert opinion. Fourth Meeting: 22nd August, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. New Member.—A. B. Keyworth.

2.“On a Curious Feature in a Marsh Plant (Glossostima), by C. W. Lee. (Transations, p. 108.) 3.“On the Production of Artificial Chromes for Ornamental Purposes,” by W. Skey. (Transactions, p. 359.) Fifth Meeting: 12th September, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair.

Sixth Meeting: 3rd October, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. New Members.—Robert Donaldson, C. Y. O'Connor, Perceval Earle, Robert Caldwell. Papers.—1. “On the Fallacy of the Electro-capillary Theory,” by W. Skey. (Transactions, p. 363.) 2. “Further Notes on New Zealand Desmidieæ, with Descriptions of New Species,” by W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S. (Transactions, p. 3.) 3. “On the Occurrence of Native Lead at Collingwood, and its Association with Gold,” by W. Skey. (Transactions, p. 367.)

Seventh Meeting: 17th October, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. Papers.—1. “Notes on the Decrease of the Pheasant in the More Settled Parts of the West Coast of the North Island,” by E. N. Liffiton. (Transactions, p. 225.) Mr. Higginson considered that the want of sufficient grain-food was one of the chief causes of the decrease. Major Campbell said that in parts of the North where there were few wekas the pheasants increased, but as the small birds increased the pheasants seemed to disappear. Mr. Coleman Phillips attributed the decrease of the pheasants to the large quantities of poisoned grain that had been spread. There were great numbers of hawks in the Wairarapa district, especially where the rabbits were, and these hawks kept the pheasants away. The pheasants would increase when the rabbits were cleared off. Mr. Park said he was able to fully corroborate all the author had said with regard to the decrease of pheasants and the corresponding increase of wekas in the Wanganui district. Both lived under the same cover; and as the weka had developed a proclivity for pheasants' eggs it was quite obvious that the native game must ultimately drive out the

imported bird. He thought the author was quite justified in his conclusion that the weka was largely concerned in the decrease of the pheasant. Mr. McKay would merely remark that in the Bay of Islands district, where there were no wekas, plenty of dogs, and hawks were very rare, the pheasant had almost disappeared, although once plentiful. The President said there appeared, as he had contended on a former occasion, to be some kind of law by which birds or beasts introduced from other countries became exceedingly numerous for a time and then died away. An important question raised now was, whether such birds or beasts must not be preserved more strictly if they are intended to increase, instead of following the usual New Zealand principle of letting a thing “slide” after you had once obtained it. 2. “On the Takahe (Notonis mantelli) in West Otago,” by J. Park, F.G.S. (Transactions, p. 226.) The Hon. Mr. Mantell said that the western shores of Lake Te Anau were known to the primeval Maoris as “The Land of the Takahe.” This bird was plentiful there in 1851, but the natives set a high value upon it, and were unwilling to procure specimens for Europeans. Mr. McKay said that it was true, as described by Mr. Park, that the supposed bird was hunted by torchlight two successive nights at the camp on Cascade Creek, and several hours each night were devoted to this purpose; but the bird was never seen. For the first time he now became aware that the bird had been seen by Mr. Park. At the time, he (Mr. McKay) was under the impression that all three supposed it to be the moa, and such it was suggested it might be by both Dr. Hector and Dr. Buller at the first meeting of the Society after the return of the expedition. In reply to Mr. McKay, Mr. Park said he could not be mistaken, as he had taken notes of the occurrences at the time. At Cascade Creek Mr. McKay devoted very little time to hunting the strange bird, only assisting for a few minutes at the decoy-fire on the evening of the 22nd January. He did not join the camp at the Forks until the beginning of February, and was absent when the incidents narrated took place. In arriving at the conclusion that the strange bird was the Notornis Mr. Park said he was largely guided by the opinion of Mr. Buchanan, who was an accomplished naturalist. Some time after this Dr. Hector suggested it might be the Aptornis. 3. “The Knowledge of Cattle among the Ancient Polynesians,” by E. Tregear, F.R.G.S. (Transactions, p. 447.) Mr. Coleman Phillips, whilst congratulating Mr. Tregear upon the research which his paper displayed, took exception to its heading. He had attended this meeting of the Society especially to hear what Mr. Tregear had to say upon “The Knowledge of Cattle among the Ancient Polynesians.” That was the heading of the paper. What he had heard was really very little else than a philological paper. Mr. Tregear's paper was actually a following of the root “ak” (from “yak,” the cow of the Oxus people, the generally-accepted early home of the Aryan race) through the different languages of the earth. In his opinion the paper this evening should have been so called. It was scarcely fair, either to the subject or to Mr. Tregear himself—the able author of the paper—to name it otherwise. A considerable amount of doubt was expressed concerning all Mr. Tregear's philological investigations, owing to the fact that he endeavoured to confine them strictly to New Zealand or Polynesia. In Polynesia. Mr. Phillips knew almost for a certainty that the present race of people there knew nothing whatever about cattle. He remembered in 1872 taking a ride of about twelve miles along the eastern

coast of Viti Levu, in Fiji, upon the first horse sent down to a plantation there in which, he was then interested. The marvel of the natives, who had never seen a horse, and their screams of astonishment as he cantered past the villages, were most amusing. The missionaries had told them of a bull and of a cow. Some of them may have seen these animals. But he only knew that the children ran screaming away, with the cry of “Bullumakau! Bullumakau!” They joined the names of bull and cow together, and so dubbed the horse. This fairly showed the state of knowledge of the present race of Polynesia upon the subject of cattle. As to the ancient race, Mr. Phillips pointed out that the languages of the present Polynesian might not have been used at all by the ancient race—that race of stone-builders which left behind the cyclopean remains still existing in the Carolines, the gigantic images of stone men still seen in Easter Island, the monoliths and trinoliths of Tonga, the remains of aqueducts in New Caledonia, &c. The present race of Polynesians knew positively nothing about these ancient stone-builders. Mr. Tregear's use of the word “ancient” was therefore scarcely warranted. He quite recognised the value of Mr. Tregear's work, and encouraged him to proceed in it; but he would prefer Mr. Tregear to treat it as a linguistic study. In answer to Mr. Phillips, Mr. Tregear said he had little to say to Mr. Phillips's argument. As to the Polynesians being a stone-building people, although in Hawaii they had temples of stone, &c., yet in New Zealand there had never been one stone put on another in prehistoric times—a proof that before the separation they had not been a stone-using people. As to Mr. Phillips being qualified to speak about ancient Polynesians because he had spent some time in Fiji, Fiji was inhabited by a Melanesian people of different origin from that of the Maori, and Fiji was not a Polynesian island at all. 4. “On the Ancient Moa-hunters at Waingongoro,” by Colonel McDonnell; communicated by J. Park. (Transactions, p. 438.) The President said that this was a question that had caused a great deal of argument. Sir Julius von Haast, Mr. Colenso, and others had taken one side (arguing that the moa was extinct before the Maoris came to New Zealand); while Mr. Mantell, Sir James Hector, and others had taken the other. He expressed surprise that Mr. Colenso should found a theory on the circumstance that there were no traditions or legends to prove otherwise, and questioned whether these traditions were of any value at all. Certainly he thought the testimony of a man who had actually seen and eaten the moa was worth ten thousand legends and traditions. Mr. Tregear said that, although not prepared that night to speak on this question at length, a paper of his on “The Maori and the Moa” had been read before the Anthropological Society of London in May this year, and to prepare for this he had read up every available authority. His conclusions were that the Maori had never seen the moa; that his knowledge of the subject (if he had any knowledge) was traditional, and gathered from some older race inhabiting the islands when the Maori arrived, and absorbed by him. The negative evidence was very strong; the absence of any distinct notice of the huge birds in hunting-legends, and in descriptions of food-supplies, was very noticeable. The moa spoken of in the vague and fragmentary allusions to be found might have been any bird, large or small. In reply to Mr. Maskell, he would state that the comparison of native legends to worthless fairy-tales was unfortunate, because some of the most valuable evidence of the remote lives of our ancestors was being gathered together by comparative mythologists from fairy-tales, and it had been found that even nursery rhymes had

passed from mouth to mouth unaltered for ages. Literature corrupted tradition; and the semi-religious manner in which old songs and charms were handed down from priest to priest and from father to son gave them a value for accuracy beside which our current gossiping way of telling narratives or of compiling history was loose and valueless. Only those who knew and loved the investigations were competent to understand their value. Mr. Park read an extract from a paper by the Rev. R. Taylor, which he said had a direct bearing on Colonel McDonnell's paper, and confirmed the incidents described by that author. Mr. Taylor describes how he visited Waingongoro in 1843, and again in 1866 in company with Sir George Grey, when he collected burnt moa-bones and obsidian-flakes, which were plentiful in the old Maori ovens at that place. Mr. Park said that the late Sir Julius von Haast always held the opinion that the moa was exterminated by an aboriginal race of Polynesian origin that inhabited New Zealand before the arrival of the Maoris. This theory, however, was based on two assumptions which had yet to be substantiated—first, that such a race did at one time occupy New Zealand; and, second, that the Maoris did not kill and eat moas. Mr. McKay, who assisted in the exploration of Sumner Cave, near Christchurch, went a little further and expressed the opinion that the extermination of the moa was the first work of the Maoris on their arrival in this country. In view of the researches of Mr. Mantell and Mr. Taylor, Mr. Park thought Mr. McKay might have gone further. It seemed now to be beyond dispute that the moa lived down into what might be called historical times. The further discussion of this paper was adjourned. Eithth Meeting: 14th November, 1888. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. Papers.—1. Adjourned discussion of Colonel McDonnell's paper on “Moa-hunting.” Mr. Tregear, speaking from some notes he had prepared, said he did not wish to impugn for a moment the good faith of Colonel McDonnell, who had doubtless presented the evidence as supplied to him, but he protested against such evidence being published as reliable. The first discoverers of moa-remains, Messrs. Colenso, Mantell, and Taylor, had been not only keen lovers of science but accomplished linguists; and they had exhausted every variety of research in trying to get reliable evidence from the oldest Maoris forty years ago, with the result that Mr. Colenso, in his learned paper on the subject, stated that if the Maoris had ever known the moa it must have been in very ancient days. He came to this conclusion from the absence of allusion to the great bird in combats of deities and heroes with monsters; from the absence of mention in hunting-stories and lists of food-supplies; from the absence of moa-feathers on garments (while cloaks of kiwi- and albatross-feathers and of dogs' tails were prized); and from the mythical character given to the bird, as being found on a mountain guarded by huge lizards, &c. The old leading chiefs to whom he (Mr. Colenso) wrote said that “neither they nor their forefathers had ever known the moa.” The speaker said that they were too apt to consider the New Zealand Maori as a unique animal: he was only a member of the Polynesian nation; and, as everywhere in Polynesia the word “moa” is used for the domestic fowl, it was probable that the Maori also once knew the fowl as “moa.” The compound words containing moa were plainly, in Polynesia, references to the cock, as “cou-

rageous,” “polygamous,” &c.; and, as many of these compound words were also used by Maoris, it is probable that they had no reference whatever to the Dinornis.; certainly the Tongan, Tahitian, Samoan, &c., words did not apply to the Dinornis. Nor did the scanty allusions in New Zealand song and proverb ever mention any attribute (such as huge size, &c.) of the bird—it might have been any bird. He believed that the pictures and descriptions of the bird sent (as reconstructed by Professor Owen) to every Maori tribe had been fitted to old traditions of a lost bird. Certainly it was monstrous that, when every effort had been made to get reliable evidence thirty years ago, a story should now be brought forward asserting that Kawaua Paipai (who only died four years ago) and his tribe hunted the moa in droves at Rangatapu. He (Mr. Tregear) had interviewed that day a number of old Maoris—one a centenarian—who had known Kawaua Paipai all their lives, and who had lived in Taranaki Province; and they laughed to scorn the idea of moas being “battued” on the Waimate Plains and they not having heard of such an occurrence. It was much easier to tell an untruth than to hunt moas in modern days. Sir James Hector was astonished at this fruitless discussion being revived. Mr. Tregear had not gone back far enough in our “Transactions,” or he would have found Mr. Colenso's reports of earlier date than 1878 referred to. In 1840 Mr. Colenso relates that he himself had gone out with a party of natives expecting to capture a live moa. He would also have found the reference to Polack's account of the large struthious bird called the “moa,” gathered from native tradition long before any bones had been described. The manner in which the moa-bones were found associated with remains of human occupation throughout New Zealand afforded clear evidence that these huge birds had been eaten and exterminated by a race that could not be distinguished by any habits of life from the Maoris of a few years ago. The determination of the epoch of the first appearance and the date of the final disappearance of the moa was more a question for a geologist than a philologist. The paucity of reference to the moa and its true nature in the early collected vocabularies was due to the circumstance that those who questioned the Maoris had no conception of the existence of such an extraordinary bird, while to the Maoris it was such common information that they never thought of mentioning it. Bishop Hadfield had explained this to him. But there were many allusions and traditions that referred to the moa. Certainly it was more rational to hold that the word “moa,” as used by the Maoris, referred to the large birds that were so abundant than to a domestic fowl, of the existence of which in New Zealand until of late years there was not a scrap of evidence. He would remind the Society that in 1876, in this room, he had exhibited a feather with an after-plume, exactly agreeing with the feathers found on the moa's neck at Clyde, in Otago, and which feather he had taken off an ancient taiaha in the British Museum collection. As to direct evidence, he could only say that the great chief Rewi told him that his grandfather had killed moas. Mr. Higginson said that he had seen in the York Museum the moa's neck and skin referred to, and its state of preservation did not give the impression that it was of very ancient date. The last recorded occurrence of the dodo in Mauritius was in 1680, and yet few or none of its bones were found until he himself collected some in 1865; and until this latter date the existence of the dodo was almost doubted. Mr. McKay said that Mr. Tregear had in effect said that the Maoris had no knowledge whatever of the moa. It must, however, be admitted that, in as far as the tools and implements of the moa-hunters could be put in evidence, they proved distinctly that the moa-hunter was identical with the Maori. The excavations in Moa-bone Cave, Sumner, showed this clearly. The antiquity of any particular deposit might or

might not be in favour of Mr. Tregear's contention, but the point raised in Colonel McDonnell's paper—namely, the probable survival of the moa to a very recent date—might be safely affirmed and supported by a variety of evidence. Bearing on this, Mr. McKay said that some years ago he had collected from a moa's nest discovered by him in the western district of Nelson, and which from its position was under conditions most unfavourable for preservation of the remains found, these being scarcely protected from the direct action of the weather, and not more than 2in. under the surface, being covered by a thin layer of leaves and decayed vegetable matter; yet the bones of a moa-chick were found in this nest, together with bones of small birds, lizards, and rats; and it could not well be that these had resisted destruction from time immemorial. Major Gudgeon stated that it was quite certain that Kawaua Paipai did point out the ovens referred to and dig up the bones. The reason why the Maoris did not speak much about the moa was that the existence of the bird was looked upon as so much a matter of fact, and it was so common. There was very little tradition on the subject. In speaking of the forest at Te Wairoa, Hawke's Bay, a native had explained to him that it had been burned by firing the scrub in order to capture the moa; that the bird was easily frightened, and that the Maoris of old used to fire the fern and scrub round the birds, who would huddle together and fall an easy prey. The President said it appeared to him that every discussion on this subject, especially perhaps the present one, added more and more weight to his argument that one direct statement of fact, one positive testimony, was worth a thousand negative theories drawn from absence of legends. The contention of Mr. Colenso, Mr. Tregear, and their friends simply amounted to saying to Maoris, “You lie when you tell us that you or your grandfather ever saw a moa, because other Maoris say nothing about those birds.” Weaker logic could probably not be found anywhere. 2. “On some Gall-producing Insects in New Zealand,” by W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S. (Transactions, p. 253.)

Ninth Meeting: 9th January, 1889. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. New Members.—H. Taperell, W. Herbert, H. W. Robinson, and George Denton.

Annual Meeting: 18th February, 1889. W. M. Maskell, F.R.M.S., President, in the chair. 1. The Annual Report and Balance-sheet were read and adopted.

General Meeting. New Members.—J. Duthie and C. H. Izard.