Wellington Philosophical Society.

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 25, 1892, Unnumbered Page

Wellington Philosophical Society. First Meeting: 13th July, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. The President thanked the members for electing him to the chair for the current year. He assured them he would do all in his power to promote the welfare of the Society. He would deliver his address at the end of the year. New Members.—Major-General Schaw, C.B., R.E., Dr. Chapple, and Mr. R. B. Roy. Papers.—1. “On Eels and their Propagation,” by E. O'H. Canavan. (Transactions, p. 191.) Sir James Hector said that this was a useful paper, although it did not add much to our knowledge of the subject. The Maoris could give us a great deal of information about eels. They had endeavoured to establish eels at Lake Taupo, but without success. Perhaps the Huka Falls prevented their getting there, and the soil was not favourable to their travelling overland—it was deficient in moisture. They were found in the Upper Waiau, but not in the Clarence River; the moving shingle was unfavourable. The paper rather raised a question than settled it. We must have more accurate information regarding the distribution of eels in New Zealand. Mr. J. P. Maxwell thought that young eels could get over any difficulties in the way of travelling; they could even climb stone walls. Mr. Maskell considered the eels in New Zealand a neglected fish. The paper would be useful in bringing the subject into more prominence. He did not think the eel was altogether a night feeder, although preferring that time. He had caught them in daylight as well as at night. The Maoris also caught them in the day-time. He had caught them 8lb. to 10lb. weight in the Clarence River, when the water was turbid. Mr. McKay said eels travelled underground in some parts of Canterbury. Mr. G. Beetham said the natives could not succeed in establishing eels at Taupo. Eels were not so numerous in Wanganui River as formerly; volcanic dust may have killed them. They feed in the daytime. Sir Walter Buller said there were several distinct varieties of eels known to the Maoris, and distinguished by name. These, no doubt, all belonged to the common species, but had become slightly differentiated by their surroundings. Thus, there was a rich-flavoured white-bellied eel inhabiting the clear mountain-streams, and a dark-coloured muddy-flavoured eel inhabiting the swamps. Whatever might be thought of eels, they had always been, and were still, a valuable property to the natives of New Zealand. Those who had travelled much in the interior—

surveyors, explorers, and others—knew how comforting it was to feel that, when provisions had run short, there was always an eel for supper. To the Maoris, whose sources of food-supply were always more or less uncertain, the eels were simply invaluable. When the terms of the celebrated Treaty of Waitangi were being arranged in 1840, the first idea of the Maori tribes was the conservation of their fisheries; and at the present day there was nothing that gave a negotiator for native lands so much trouble as this ever-recurring claim as to fishing-rights. Eel-preserves were often a very important element in the determination of tribal title to land; and as long as the Maori race lasted eels would continue to be a valuable possession. The Chairman concluded his remarks with a quotation from a speech by Sir William Fox, as counsel for the Crown in the famous Rangitikei-Manawatu case, in the Native Land Court at Otaki, in the course of which, in describing the title of the Ngatiapa, he said, “They had sole and undisputed possession of the eel-ponds, and constantly resorted to them for food. Many persons—perhaps even some of the members of this Court—may not appreciate the importance of this. It has a parallel in English history. It is a fact that not only the name, but a great part of the revenue of one of the richest abbeys and cathedral churches in England, were derived from eel-ponds. The eel-fed monks led a jolly life. An old Saxon song says, ‘Merry sang the monks in Ely, as King Canute went sailing by.’ And in the primitive state of life which existed on this coast in 1840, the eel-ponds between Manawatu and Rangitikei were worth more than a gold-mine to the natives resident there. Kereopa said truly—at that time the eel-preserves were the great property in that part of the country, and he, a Ngatiraukawa, adds, ‘They were all held by the Ngatiapa, and they have retained possession of them to the present day.’ To European minds, cultivation may seem a more important exercise of ownership than habitual fishing in eel-ponds; but in New Zealand it is just the reverse. The preserves in question swarm with millions of them. On one visit paid by the Superintendent of Wellington [the late Dr. Featherston] to that district, he was presented with a dish of twenty thousand eels for dinner. You may grow potatoes or feed sheep anywhere, but eels can only be got where Nature causes them to be. A great eel-fishery like that between Manawatu and Rangitikei is of as much value to the natives as the banks of Newfoundland or the Bay of Fundy to those who deal in codfish. I contend that, if the Ngatiraukawa had been as thick over that land as the eels are in its ponds, the undisputed exercise of the right of fishery in the hands of the Ngatiapa would have been proof that the mana of the district was still with them. To enjoy the right of fishing, the right to the adjacent land is essential; and there is no ingredient of so much weight in all this case to prove the continuance of the Ngatiapa mana in the disputed block as their holding on to the eel-ponds.” 2. “Notes on New Zealand Birds,” by Sir W. Buller (with specimens in illustration). (Transactions, p. 53.) Before proceeding to his notes, the author bore testimony to the great service rendered by the late Governor, Lord Onslow, in his memorandum for Ministers recommending the setting-apart of the Little Barrier at the North, and Resolution Island in the South, as perpetual reserves for the conservation of the indigenous fauna and flora; and he said that the Hon. Mr. Ballance had earned the hearty thanks of every ornithologist by the prompt action he had taken in order to give effect to the Governor's proposals. The President quoted from the papers on the subject now before both Houses of the General Assembly, and explained shortly how the scheme would be carried out. The specimens exhibited were a creamy-yellow-coloured Anthornis melanura, and a parrakeet (Platycercus novœ-zealandiœ) largely marked with canary-yellow.

Mr. Maskell doubted as to whether these winged birds could be kept on the islands, and questioned if the food on the islands would suit all the birds it was proposed to conserve—the huia, for instance. If they were sure of this it would be a good thing done. Sir W. Buller said he considered the plan would answer well in every way. The huia adapted itself to almost every place. 3. Sir W. Buller exhibited two very interesting Maori objects, namely,— (1.) A kapu, or carved funnel, used in former times for conveying water into the mouths of chiefs who were in a tapu or sacred condition, and therefore unable to touch food with their hands, or to permit themselves to be touched by the hands of others. This condition always followed the hahunga, or scraping of human bones before depositing them in their final resting-place, as well as other religious ceremonies, and lasted until the subjects had undergone the function of whakanoanga or purification. On these occasions the tohungas or other “sacred persons” squatted on the ground with their hands behind them, and were fed by young girls, who, using a fernstalk after the manner of a fork, tended them with cooked food from a kono, or open green-flax basket, and at intervals poured water into their mouths from a calabash by means of a kapu or funnel. The specimen exhibited was dug up in an old limestonecave deposit at the Bay of Islands, and is evidently of extreme age. It is fashioned out of seasoned kotukutuku, or native fuchsia, and the shell-carving with which it is embellished all over is of an ancient type, and very curious in its design. There are two specimens in the British Museum (one of them presented by Sir George Grey, about the year 1852), and another in the Ethnological Museum at Cambridge, and these are the only ones of which we have any knowledge. So far as colonial collections are concerned the specimen exhibited is quite unique. (2.) A kaea, or Maori war-trumpet. This instrument is now extremely rare. There is a specimen in the British Museum, and another in the Ethnographical Museum at Berlin, but so far as is known there is no other example in the colony. This specimen is nearly 5ft. in length, and has a firm outer lashing of split kareao, or “supple-jack,” whereas the British Museum specimen, which is apparently of more modern construction, is bound round in its whole length with strong whipcord. The most interesting feature in this sounding instrument is an ingenious contrivance, in imitation, it is said, of the human tonsil, about a foot within the larger orifice. In the hands of a practised Maori warrior this trumpet is capable of producing a very extraordinary and

far-reaching call; but few Maoris of the present generation are able to sound it.

Second Meeting: 3rd August, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. New Member.—Mr. Cyril Tanner. Papers.—1. “On a New Zealand Variety of Floscularia coronetta, Cubitt,” by Archdeacon Stock, B.A.; communicated by Mr. W. M. Maskell. (Transactions, p. 193.) Mr. Maskell gave a general description of these minute animals, and said they were most beautiful objects under the microscope. He said they were very easily collected. Mr. Powles said he had obtained good samples in the ponds in the Botanic Gardens. 2. “On a Diatom Deposit at Pakaraka, Bay of Islands,” by A. McKay, F.G.S. (Transactions, p. 375.) Sir James Hector described the locality where this deposit occurs as a small lagoon that is fed by an underground passage from a lake southeast of the volcanic hill Parerua. The hollow has been formed by the intrusion of ancient lava-streams. It dries up frequently, and the diatoms with which it swarms then die, and their siliceous remains form a layer which bleaches. When the pool again fills with the naturally-filtered water a fresh crop grows, and the species that predominate no doubt depends on the season of the year at which this takes place, and thus causes the great variety observed. Mr. Maskell said that, as Mr. McKay had referred to him in the paper, it was necessary that he should say a few words upon the matter. He would not give any opinion whatsoever as to the geological aspect of

it, as he had no pretension to any knowledge of geology. But when last year Mr. McKay asked him to examine microscopically this deposit, he was impressed by so marked a difference between the diatom growth on the surface-grasses and water-weeds and the diatoms in the earth itself, and suggested to Mr. McKay to have a further examination of it. It might be well, perhaps, to remind the meeting that by “diatoms” are meant a number of excessively minute organisms existing in fresh or salt water, which naturalists nowadays unanimously agreed to consider as plants. These plants, almost inconceivably minute as they are, consist very largely of a hard purely-siliceous skeleton, with (doubtfully) some mucous substance either enclosed by or surrounding the flinty mass. In life diatoms might be either attached by stalks to weeds, or free and stalkless, and in many instances were endowed with a power of motion in the water which nobody had yet been able to satisfactorily explain. When dead the flinty skeleton alone remained, and this, falling to the bottom of the water, went to build up the substance known as “diatomaceous earth,” of which the present was a specimen. Further, in most instances it was possible to distinguish living and dead diatoms by the presence in the former of “endochrome,” internal colouring-matter, probably part of the mucous portion of the plant. Now, the difference which, in 1891, he had noted in the material submitted by Mr. McKay was that, in the surface-growth of diatoms, mostly still alive, the vast majority of the plants seen belonged to a common, widely-spread genus—Melosira, with some very minute Naviculœ—while in the deposit then taken from 1ft. in the earth there are also large numbers of an entirely different diatom, which Mr. Grove (the leading English authority) referred to the genus Achnanthes. This change led him to suggest to Mr. McKay a further examination, and the result was that ten samples were this year collected and submitted to the speaker, one for each foot of depth (besides the surface-growth), the whole deposit being 9ft. thick Of this he had made very careful examination, taking five specimen slides from each sample, or fifty in all; and the result not only confirmed his diagnosis of 1891, but revealed further rather curious changes in the genera seen. Whilst Melosira and Navicula formed all through the vast majority of the diatoms, Achnanthes exhibited rather curious oscillations, being strikingly plentiful at certain depths, and exceedingly rare, if not absent, at others. Moreover, there were three other genera—Surirella, Pinnularia, and Epithemia (all of which are by no means uncommon in many New Zealand deposits)—which occurred in large numbers at the depths of 8ft. and 9ft., but which then ceased to appear, being entirely absent from the higher parts of the deposit. These oscillations of genera seemed to the speaker to be worthy of remark, and perhaps of still further inquiry. Mr. McKay was of opinion that a period of several thousand years must have elapsed since the deposit was first commenced. If this was correct, it would appear that some changes, climatic or other, must have occurred at intervals, resulting in the prevalence or the diminution of the various genera named. The speaker founded no theory whatever on the facts observed, merely relating these as seeming to be worthy of record and possibly of further examination. Specimens of the diatoms were then examined under the microscope by the members. After the reading of the papers, Mr. McKay exhibited with the lantern a series of views of New Zealand scenery, chiefly of the West Coast. They were intended principally to show the geological character of the country.

Third Meeting: 24th August, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. Paper.—“On the Extinction of the Moa,” by E. Tregear, F.R.G.S. (Transactions, p. 413.) Sir W. Buller said that, as the author had pointedly mentioned his story of the pet moa, he would explain the reference. At the hearing of the great Rangatira Block case in the Native Land Court in 1882, he (the speaker) acted as counsel for the Ngatiapa Tribe. The title to the block of land in dispute was closely contested at every point by the rival tribes; but one piece of traditional history was accepted by both sides as true—this was the story of the pet bird of the Ngatituwharetoa. Instead of belonging to the “land of pure myth,” this story recounted an incident in the history of the Ngatiapa Tribe; and the account given by a witness well versed in the traditions of the people was as follows: Apahapaitaketake, an ancestor of the Ngatiapa people, stole a moa which was a pet bird of the Ngatituwharetoa. While doing so he fell over a cliff and broke his thigh, and was thenceforward nicknamed “Hapakoki” (Hop-and-go-one). He got off with the moa in spite of this. When the Ngatituwharetoa heard of this outrage, they came down, upon his place and carried off his wife, Hinemoatu, in payment for the moa which he had stolen. Then Hapakoki, in great wrath, went and seized the kumaras of Kawerau; and the Ngatituwharetoa, in equal wrath, made an attack on the Ngatiapa. As the result of all this, the Ngatiapa left the Bay of Plenty district, and came to Maunganui, in the Upper Rangitikei, where they were again attacked by the Ngatituwharetoa, who had pursued them from Te Awa-o-te-atua. Then the Ngatiapa moved on south, and settled on the north-east side of the Taupo Lake; but they were followed up and again attacked, after which they moved on to Tawhare-papaama and Moturoa, south of Taupo and close to Rotoaira, on the edge of the lake of that name, whence they subsequently migrated to the coast and settled down between the Wangaehu and Manawatu Rivers. Now, this was a pretty-well-authenticated story—accepted, at any rate, by rival factions in Court as historically true—showing that the moa was not only well known to the ancestors of the present race of Maoris, but that it was capable of domestication, and that a tame one had been an important factor in the tribal history of the Ngatiapa. It might be urged that this was an isolated case, but he would submit that, even so, it was a sufficient answer to the sweeping assertion that the ancient Maori knew nothing about the moa or its existence. He quite agreed with Mr. Tregear that it was desirable to treat the whole question from an impersonal point of view. The subject had been so much discussed and speculated upon for years past that the band of scientists and workers in New Zealand had, as it were, divided themselves into two schools. There were those represented by the late Sir Julius von Haast, including Professor Hutton, Mr. Colenso, Mr. Stack, and others, who believed that the moa became extinct at a remote date, perhaps many thousands of years ago; and those represented by Sir James Hector, Mr. Mantell, Mr. Travers, Mr. Maskell, and many others, including himself, who held to the theory that some, at any rate, of the species of Dinornis, if not the more colossal ones, had survived to within a comparatively recent period, and had been finally killed off by the ancestors of the present race of Maoris. Sir W. Buller proceeded to give numerous facts in support of the latter contention. He added that the late Professor De Quatrefages had, in a masterly review of the whole of the literature on this subject, arrived at a similar conclusion; and he quoted several passages from a translation of that memoir (“Les Moas et les Chasseurs de Moas”) made by Miss

Buller, and laid on the table at a former meeting of the Society. He concluded by saying that, although Mr. Tregear, from a philological treatment of the subject, appeared to have arrived at an opposite conclusion, he had listened to the paper with much interest, because it was a very suggestive one and opened up new lines of thought. Mr. Travers considered that the moa existed as a living bird within a limited period. He referred to Mr. White's description of the hunting of the moa, and to the traditions on the subject. He had no doubt about the evidence that the ancestors of the present race of Maoris had eaten this bird. The finds of bones at Oamaru and elsewhere would prove that the existence was comparatively recent. The Maoris must have known about the moa. A moa's egg was found buried with a chief. The egg and chick, the latter in the embryo state, found in Otago would bear out the recent theory. He did not think it could have meant the common fowl. The word “moa” was given to a bird tall and graceful in its movements. We could not judge of this matter from the Maoris of the present day, but fifty years ago they were familiar with the existence of this bird. It was strange that so many species of this gigantic bird should have existed in New Zealand. Mr. Harding did not think Mr. White altogether a safe guide on this matter. The place mentioned by Mr. White where a moa was destroyed was actually occupied by Europeans, and yet they did not seem to have made this fact known. As to the preservation of the moa-remains, it was well known that seeds, bones, &c., might be preserved for thousands of years if they were protected from destroying agencies. The natives very often gave information that they thought would please those asking them. Mr. Maskell said that, if Mr. Harding's views about the Maoris were correct, they entirely bore out his contention that Maori traditions on such matters were valueless. It stood to reason that, if a Maori was ready to invent a tradition about moas out of courtesy to a white man, then the reliance to be placed on any Maori traditions whatever could only be infinitesimal; and, further, it must be clear that neither the absence nor presence of a tradition could form an argument of any value at all. In point of fact, the “traditions” of savage or semi-savage races which had not a literature of any kind must necessarily be valueless the moment they extended beyond the domain of ordinary domestic affairs, or distinct actions of perhaps two or three generations ago. He quite agreed with the President as to the very great importance of the paper by M. De Quatrefages, and he was proud of having been the first to bring that paper under the notice of the people of the colony several years ago, in the pages of the “New Zealand Journal of Science.” As for the philological aspect of the question, it still seemed to him, as he had said on former occasions, that by merely taking words of different languages, and comparing their spelling and sounds, especially if such spelling and sounds were not those of the natives, but those of missionaries, a man might prove to his own satisfaction every conceivable theory. Philology so confined was no real service. The important points for consideration in comparative philology were grammar and syntax, and mere verbal resemblances were not, taken alone, valuable. To return to tradition, whilst he thought little of Maori legends, he did value European tradition, and he well remembered hearing the late Sir F. Weld state often that, when he started from Nelson, somewhere about 1848, to make the first overland journey to what is now Canterbury, the Maoris warned him to be very careful of the large birds which he would meet in the mountains, and which would kick him to death if they could. That was a tradition worth any number of volumes filled with Maori legends. Mr. A. McKay thought the discussion had drifted from the subject of Mr. Tregear's paper. As regards moa remains, they were to be found in

or near almost every Maori encampment between Cape Campbell and Catlin's River in Otago; and the question was, Were there in the South Island a race anterior to the Maoris who alone knew the moa? If so, it was strange that the Maoris afterwards occupied every encampment in which moa-remains were to be found. It therefore was a question of moa and Maori or moa and a race anterior to the Maori. Mr. Tregear, in reply, said that his paper had been misunderstood by most of the speakers, as it had been considered to imply that he considered the Dinornis to have been destroyed at an immense distance of time ago. What he had endeavoured to show was that allusions in folklore and mythology, which had hitherto been taken as evidence that the Maori was acquainted with the Dinornis, were unreliable for this purpose; and he had started a new line of inquiry. As to the value of comparative philology, whatever a single person in his audience might say, it was too well acknowledged as of worth by the greatest minds of the age to need defence. How to reconcile the absence of allusion in tradition and the statements of old chiefs about “the days of the Deluge” with the apparent freshness of the remains exhibited by naturalists the speaker did not know; but he felt certain that one day the true explanation would be furnished, and then every one would be surprised at its simplicity. In the meantime any one who could lend assistance by purifying what was called “the evidence on the subject” was doing some service, however slight.

Fourth Meeting: 14th September, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. Papers.—1. “On the Antarctic Seals,” by Sir James Hector. (Transactions, p. 255.) Sir W. Buller had considered the specimen referred to as being in Mr. Drew's collection to be an albino, but after Sir James Hector's description he had no doubt about its being the sea-leopard. He had some fine seal-tusks given him by the natives, which he would exhibit at a future meeting. 2. “On an Ant-like Insect (Betyla fulva, Cameron) parasitic in the New Zealand Glowworm,” by G. V. Hudson, F.E.S. (Transactions, p. 164.) The author stated that he had forwarded the specimen to Mr. Saunders, in England, for description. Mr. Maskell asked Mr. Hudson whether this might not be a parasite that lays its eggs on the eggs of the insect. Mr. Hudson said that some were found in the eggs and some were parasitic in the larvæ. 3. The President called attention to a number of articles on the table made from Taranaki ironsand, which were exhibited by Mr. E. M. Smith, M.H.R. The articles consisted of buckets, bolts, carriage-steps, a fly-wheel, a ratchet-wheel, also horse-shoes, and various other articles.

Mr. Smith explained that the castings were effected at the Onehunga Ironworks, whilst the malleable portion of the exhibits was the work of Messrs. Luke and Son, of Wellington. A pan of the ironsand was shown; and it was stated that 85 per cent. of the sand is virgin iron. Mr. Smith gave a most interesting account of the process employed in the manufacture of these articles, and declared that they could be made 25 per cent. cheaper and 25 per cent. better than similar imported articles.

Fifth Meeting: 5th October, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. Papers.—1. “On a Maori Waiata, or Song,” by R. C. Bruce, M.H.R. (Transactions, p. 426.) Mr. Tregear said that Mr. Bruce deserved the thanks of the Society for having brought this beautiful poem to light. It was of great value historically, as well as from a poetical point of view. He thought, However, it might have been in part adapted from some other old song, and not altogether an original composition by the old chief mentioned. Sir James Hector said the chief interest of this waiata was the mention of the hokioi associated with the moa. The hokioi had been identified as a huge vulturine bird that preyed on the moa and was now quite extinct. The bones were first identified and described by the late Sir J. von Haast. He (the speaker) then exhibited two photographs of a very fine skull of this bird recently taken by Mr. Hamilton, of Dunedin. Sir W. Buller, whilst testifying to the historical interest attaching to the waiata, expressed a doubt as to its entire originality. He had heard it alleged by other natives that it was only an adaptation by Te Hakeke. That this chief was, however, a man of renown and individuality was admitted on all hands. His son, the late Kawana Hunia te Hakeke, inherited these qualities; indeed, he was one of the most capable and remarkable men of his day. With a devotion beyond all praise, he spent his whole life in continuous and never-ceasing efforts to restore the fallen fortunes of his tribe. Bishop Hadfield had described in graphic language the deplorable condition of the Ngatiapa Tribe when he first came to the coast. Chiefly through the exertions of Kawana Hunia the tribe had been completely rehabilitated, and had recovered possession of all its ancestral lands. He was glad to have this opportunity of paying a tribute to the unselfish character of the late Kawana Hunia. He was inclined to think that the hokioi referred to was really the frigate-bird.

Captain Mair said that traditions indicated that the hokioi was a very large bird of prey, and that it could not have been the frigate-bird that was intended. The Chairman was still inclined to think it was the frigate-bird, which was a true bird of prey—in fact, the vulture of the ocean. Mr. Bruce, in reply, was glad to find that his communication had so much interest. He might remark that, if the description of the colour of the hokioi given in the waiata was to be taken as reliable, it could not' have been the frigate-bird that was intended.

Abstract. The author referred to the large amount of information collected bearing on the moa. He considered that the probable extinction of the moa could only be fixed approximately after all the evidence had been exhausted. He quoted numerous Maori traditions and accounts given him by old natives, showing the several localities—five or six in number—where, fifteen or sixteen generations ago, solitary moas were reputed to exist. He gave the history of two pikis, or head-dresses, made from moa-feathers, and named Te Rauamoa and Te Rauopiopio, which were famous in former times, and to which there are numerous allusions in songs and proverbs. He pointed out the extraordinary and fabulous accounts given by the natives, which proved that it was impossible that their immediate or even remote ancestors could have possessed any intimate or reliable knowledge of the moa; that among the vast number of histories of blocks inquired into by the Native Land Court hardly any allusion had ever been made to moas. He gave instances of the extraordinary preservation of human bodies under certain conditions after death, and suggested that the specimens of moa-remains found in an almost fresh condition had probably been preserved in some such manner. The conclusion he came to was that the moa was exterminated at least twelve generations ago. Mr. Field said he could produce evidence to prove that the moa was in existence in these Islands not more than fifty years ago. There were numbers of natives who knew all about the moas, and who had eaten them. They described how they killed men by striking out in front with the foot. He believed the chief cause of their disappearance was that the wild pigs had destroyed their eggs. He had seen undoubted moa-feathers. He described how the bones were cut with a sharp instrument, evidently a tomahawk introduced by Europeans. He would send down all the evidence he could collect bearing on the subject. Sir W. Buller stated that struthious birds are in the habit of striking downwards with the foot, lifting it towards the breast. As to the headdress of moa-feathers said to have been in possession of the late Rev. R. Taylor, this relic was now in the collection of Mr. Henry Harper, of Wanganui. He (the speaker) had recently examined it. The plumes were only cassowary-feathers, and the mounting was split bamboo or rattan from the islands. Mr. Tregear said that the legends read by Captain Mair were some of them quite new and valuable. The remarks regarding the feather plumes quite bore out what he thought formerly as to the Maori not knowing the Dinornis. “Rauamoa” evidently meant “a plume belonging to (a man's name) Moa,” and “Rauopiopio” showed that it was a plume of the bird piopio. This piopio was not the thrush (Turnagra hectori), but a lost bird; certainly not Dinornis. The real feathers of the Dinornis had all been discovered by naturalists or geologists, and were not found in possession of Maoris. When Maoris of to-day had legends to tell concerning the moa they were all of such preposterous and mythical character that they proved the truth of what the old chiefs of fifty years ago alleged—

viz., “That neither they nor their forefathers had ever seen the moa, because the last moas were destroyed at the time of the Deluge.” That the Dinornis had been killed and cooked by men in New Zealand was certain from the geological evidence, but that the Polynesian Maori had known the Dinornis at all was highly improbable. Possibly vague accounts had been handed down from the prehistoric inhabitants (moahunters), with whom it was almost certain the Polynesian immigrants had intermarried. Mr. Maskell did not think Maori stories were worth much as evidence in this matter of the moa. He considered the following facts were worth all the legends that could be brought forward: (1.) A certain Maori told Colonel McDonnell that he had hunted and killed the moa, and pointed out the place where the bones would be found, and where they were found. (2.) Moa-bones lay in millions on the open ground in the South Island, in Canterbury, where there was not likely ever to have been dense vegetation. Would they, under such circumstances, last for generations? (3.) Sir F. Weld asserted that, when making a journey into the interior shortly after 1840, he had been warned by natives to look out for the big bird that he might meet on the mountains, and that would kick a man to death. Captain Mair, in reply, said that no doubt the story referred to was told to Colonel McDonnell to please him. The vegetation where bones were found in the North was quite thick, and he did not see why it should not have been equally dense in the South at some period. The story told to Sir F. Weld was merely told to alarm him. This was often done by the natives; he had been told things of this kind himself. The bones found on the line of General Cameron's march were probably beef-bones. He did not think the Maoris knew anything concerning the moa even for eight generations back.

Sixth Meeting: 26th October, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. New Members.—Mr. B. M. Molineaux and Mr. H. J. Feeman. Papers.—1. “On Unwritten Literature,” by R. C. Harding. (Transactions, p. 439.) Mr. Hulke agreed that the lore of the people referred to by the author was quite as valuable as that of our own. He did not think that real genuine poetic feeling would die out as was supposed, however hard we had to fight the battle of life. The Maori was quite as poetical as those gone before. Mr. Maskell considered this paper a most valuable contribution; it required to be read carefully before any proper discussion could take place on the subject treated. He would take an early opportunity of writing an answer to this paper, as there were many points on which he differed from the author. It was the tendency of the age to look down on the emotional side of things, and to give too great prominence to the practical and purely scientific; but nature would assert itself. The modern tendency was to discourage literature and foster technical science, but he did not think this would succeed. Sir W. Buller complimented Mr. Harding on his paper, but took exception to some of his observations. The speaker referred to the peculiarities of Maori tradition and poetry, and testified to the marvellous powers of memory possessed by these custodians of an “unwritten literature.” He had heard a Maori for hours together recounting tribal and family genealogies without once faltering or tripping—genealogies throwing quite into the shade the longest of those given in the Scriptures. He dwelt on the flexible character of the Maori language—its euphony, and the idioms, which lent themselves so readily to poetry. Some of the books of the Old Testament, such as the “Song of Solomon,” were confessedly more beautiful in Maori than in English. Many of the poems possessed a high order of merit; and the collection, or rather selection, made by Sir George Grey, and published under the title of “Poetry of New Zealand,” was a very important contribution to Polynesian literature, the only regret being that no translation had ever appeared. The speaker doubted, indeed, whether it would be possible now to get many of these poems translated, their references being too obscure, and their language that of the race of tohungas or priests, who had now passed away. Twenty years ago, when he, the speaker, first met Professor Max Müller at Oxford, that distinguished scholar sent his regards to Sir George Grey, and a request for the long-promised translation. Sir W. Buller said he did not wish to underrate Mr. Colenso's labours in the same direction, but he considered Sir George Grey's volume of “Maori Proverbs” (published subsequently to the “Poetry”) far and away the most complete collection in existence. This book was now extremely scarce, and, for the sake of Polynesian literature, he would be glad to see the New Zealand Government undertake its republication. Mr. Harding, in reply, said that he was agreeably surprised that his paper had been received so well. What he had wished to imply was that the appreciation of poetry was dying out, not that poetry itself was disappearing. 2. “On some Mites parasitic on Beetles and Woodlice,” by W. M. Maskell. (Transactions, p. 199.) Mr. Hudson exhibited two beetles with the parasite on them. He remarked that he did not think that attention should be wholly devoted

to the description of those insects that were injurious or otherwise to man; attention should also be given to the general study of insects. Mr. Maskell pointed out that he always gave the scientific descriptions of the insects he treated, but abstained from reading them at the meetings.

Seventh Meeting: 7th December, 1892. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. New Member.—Mr. Henry Wright. The Secretary announced that Sir W. Buller, Mr. J. McKerrow, and Mr. S. Percy Smith had been elected Governors of the New Zealand Institute, to represent the incorporated societies, for the ensuing year. Papers.—1. “Synonymical Notes on New Zealand Cicadidœ,” by G. V. Hudson. (Transactions, p. 162.) Sir James Hector thought it quite right for naturalists to give their reasons for what they had done when questioned as to the correctness of their descriptions. The Chairman also thought that Mr. Hudson had taken the proper course in this matter. 2. “Observations on Rainbows,” by R. C. Harding. (Transactions, p. 448.) Sir James Hector said that he had seen double lunar bows in high latitudes; and in the case of lunar halos, where the effect was produced by the diffractive influence of ice-spiculæ, the arches were often numerous, and made complicated figures. Mr. Hudson had seen two lunar rainbows. Mr. Maskell said that Mr. Harding's paper, as was usual with him, suggested points outside the ostensible ones treated of, and he should like to draw attention to one of them. In De Morgan's “Budget of Paradoxes,” a most amusing and instructive book, mention was made (he forgot the page) of a picture exhibited in London many years ago at the Royal Academy, in which the artist painted a rainbow reflected in a lake. The picture was variously criticized. Artists said it was quite right. Some scientists said it was all wrong; others were doubtful. De Morgan, in his book, did not decide the point, but seemed to indicate that everybody was wrong all round. The speaker had seen the point referred to in several

scientific treatises, but in none was any positive decision given. Now, could a rainbow be seen reflected in the water? If not, why not? If so, at what angles must the rays strike the water after emergence from the raindrops so as to produce on the eye exactly correct colours after the double reflection, and perhaps quadruple refraction? Personally, he rather thought that it could not be so reflected, but would like to hear what more competent authorities could say on the point. With regard to lunar rainbows, he could very well recollect seeing in Wellington on one night in 1860, when a heavy dark cloud was rolling up from the south, a perfectly-formed arch on the cloud, but quite white and shining, without any trace of colour. The moon at the time was quite or almost full. General Schaw was inclined to think that the reflection could not be seen. In regard to what Mr. Harding had said of the reflection of the moon, Ruskin stated that it was parallel on the water. Sir James Hector said the shape of the moon's reflection to the eye depended on the state of the surface of the water. An absolutely still surface would only reflect one image. The more agitated the surface the wider the band of light owing to multiple reflection. Mr. Tregear, in referring to a remark by Mr. Harding “that artists were often very incorrect, while poets were the more truthful in their descriptions of nature,” said that undoubtedly the higher poets were wonderfully close observers of nature: indeed, the faculty of extraordinary insight and observation was one of the proofs of artistic genius. He would instance the remark of a farmer who said that he had been among English woods all his life, but never noticed the intense blackness of the buds of the ash until he read Tennyson's line,— As black as ash-buds in the front of March. He did not know if it had been before brought to the notice of the Society that Shakspeare, in “Troilus and Cressida,” had said,— My love is as the centre of the earth, Drawing all things into it. This in a day when things were believed to fall by their own weight. The poet thus in a few concise words anticipates the theory of gravitation set forth years after by Newton. 3. “On a New Insectivorous Plant in New Zealand,” by Sir W. Buller. (Transactions, p. 302.) Mr. Kirk said that insectivorous plants were generally known in New Zealand. There were three or four different kinds, but he had not observed the peculiar carnivorous properties mentioned in the one now described. It was more frequent in the pitcher plants; and he proceeded to describe, in some detail, the existence of bladders in plants of this description. Sir J. Hooker deserved the same honour as Mr. Darwin for his discovery in this direction. Mr. Hudson and Sir James Hector had seen specimens of this fungus near Wellington. Sir W. Buller said he was glad that Mr. Kirk had so readily accepted his conclusions, seeing that he was an acknowledged authority on New Zealand botany. He was pleased to hear that gentleman so unhesitatingly affirm his belief that the fungus described by the author possessed the power of assimilating the albumen contained in the bodies of the insects, and applying the matter so absorbed to its own nourishment. The other New Zealand plants mentioned by Mr. Kirk belonged, all of them, to the family Droseraceœ. The plants furnished with minute bladders, of which he had given such interesting particulars, belonged to a natural group, of which Mr. Darwin had given us a full account in his work on “Insectivorous Plants.” The curious thing about this one was, as Mr. Kirk would admit, that it was a plant of an entirely different

order. The points which he had desired to emphasize in his notice of this fungus were, in the first place, its faculty of attracting insects by means of its brilliant flower-like appearance, coupled with the pungent odour of its viscid secretion; and, secondly, its power of digesting and absorbing them into its own system after being caught. The “seaanemone” form of Aseroë, referred to by Sir James Hector as occurring at the Hutt, must be an entirely distinct species, and was deserving of attention, the only two New Zealand forms at present known to botanists being A. rubra and A. hookeri. As to Sir J. Hooker's undoubted share in the credit of the discovery as to the carnivorous properties of Drosera, he might mention that on the occasion of his first visit to Darwin, at his beautiful home in Kent (in the year 1873), he found Sir Joseph Hooker there, and they had been employed the whole of that Sunday forenoon making experiments upon these vegetable secretions, with the grand result that they had discovered or demonstrated that this solvent was the exact analogue of the gastric juice in animals, and that the insect food passed through practically the same process of digestion and assimilation. The results of this investigation, and of the subsequent series of experiments on living and growing plants by feeding them systematically on particles of raw flesh, are fully stated in Darwin's famous work on the subject. Mr. Cohen exhibited a specimen of the leaf-insect from Fiji. Sir J. Hector exhibited a minute insect taken from a Spanish chestnut tree which it had destroyed. Mr. Bright had sent it from Greytown. Mr. Hudson thought it was indigenous. He had observed it boring in native trees; he had not fully examined them yet.

Eighth Meeting: 18th January, 1893. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. Papers.—1. “On Rainbows caused by Reflection in Still Water, and on Elliptical Rainbows,” by Major - General Schaw, C.B., R.E. (Transactions, p. 450.) Sir James Hector said that this was a most interesting paper. Few persons would imagine that there was so much to be learned on the subject of rainbows, and there was much in the paper that was quite new and had not been previously observed. Mr. Harding was glad he had brought the subject forward at a previous meeting, as it had had the effect of bringing out such an admirable paper as General Schaw's; and he was glad to receive confirmation of his view that a reflected rainbow could be seen, although not the one visible to the eye. He hardly thought that the tertiary bow was accounted for in the paper. Mr. C. Tanner referred to experiments he had made with a gardenhose, which gave complete circular bows. Mr. Maskell was pleased that his question at the last meeting as to whether a rainbow could be reflected in the water had been the means of producing such an excellent paper as they had just listened to. It was evident that the painter he referred to had made a mistake in his drawing, for it was clear to him now that the reflection of a bow could be seen, but not that of the actual bow observed. Mr. Richardson said there was a gentleman now in the room who had seen the reflection of a rainbow, and he would no doubt give a de scription of it. Mr. A. Koch then said that on the 29th June last, about 10 a.m., on board the cable-steamer “Terranora,” anchored off the pilot-station, in Worser Bay, his attention was excited by a very brilliant rainbow, forming a complete semicircle. It started about the back of the pilot-house, and continued its direction above the Pinnacle Rock, descending into the sea about half a mile from the eastern shore of the entrance to Wellington Harbour. The sea was without a ripple, a steady rain falling, and both sea and distant headlands of a deep slate-colour. The rainbow left a distinct and brilliant-coloured reflection upon the sea; and, having called the attention of some other gentlemen on board, an additional fact was observed, which none of us could explain—viz., that the reflection did not commence at the point at which the rainbow dipped into the sea, but started about 10 chains inside the semicircle formed by the rainbow. As doubts had been expressed on rainbow reflections, he was glad he had sketched this one (see Pl. LI.). Sir Walter Buller said that, inasmuch as the rainbow appearance was due to the angle of incidence, and was governed by the laws of optics, it seemed to him that, technically, no two persons looking at the same time, but necessarily at different angles of vision, could see the same rainbow, so that, in truth, each pair of eyes had its own rainbow. He had seen perfect lunar rainbows, either colourless or with an extremely faint tint. The most remarkable one he had seen was at the Chatham Islands in 1855, and, if he could trust his memory, it was attended by a very pale secondary bow. The most beautiful solar rainbow he had ever seen was one projected on the cloud of fine spray at the Falls of Niagara in 1874. Mr. G. Beetham had more than once seen a true lunar rainbow in New Zealand suffused with a pale colour like a faded solar rainbow. Major-General Schaw said that the tertiary bow was formed by the third reflection. It was not often seen. He also said that the observa-tion by Mr. Koch of a reflected rainbow was extremely interesting, as it

was the only instance of such a reflection having been seen that he had yet met with. 2. “Further Coccid Notes; with Descriptions of New Species from Australia, India, Sandwich. Islands, Demerara, and South Pacific,” by W. M. Maskell. (Transactions, p. 201.) Before referring to his paper Mr. Maskell exhibited a small green beetle, and a fly which eats these destructive beetles. It was collected by Mr. Pine, of Hastings. The fly is Asilus lascus, and probably was what is known as the bot-fly, and if it destroyed these beetle pests it would not be considered to be so harmful as a horse-pest. Mr. Laing said that the bot-fly had been identified as an introduced Mexican fly. Sir Walter Buller thought he recognised the fly exhibited as a native species with which he had been familiar for over thirty years. The native fly to which he referred was a predatory species, and common in certain parts. As to its supposed usefulness in eradicating the little green beetle, by preying upon it, this seemed quite absurd. As country people were aware, this little beetle with shining green surface came at certain seasons in countless millions, covering the manuka scrub (Leptospermum scoparium) so thickly that not a leaf was visible. On these occasions the Maoris went out and collected the beetles in baskets by shaking the scrub, after which they prepared them for food, finally drying them in the sun, and pounding them into a kind of bread. The speaker said that it must be satisfactory to members to find that one of their number had come to be regarded as a specialist in regard to this particular group of insects, all over the world. From all countries Mr. Maskell now received specimens for discrimination and description, and in the voluminous paper which he had now produced there was scarcely any mention made of a single New Zealand species. To a layman it ought to be sufficient proof that good work was being done when an investigator in New Zealand was accepted as an authority in America and Europe, and his assistance invoked in the determination of foreign species belonging to the family which he had made his special study; and, although the descriptions might seem dry and technical, there could be no doubt that such contributions added much to the scientific value of our annual volume of Transactions. Sir James Hector said that Mr. Maskell's work was most valuable. He said he expected shortly to receive from America a beetle that would destroy the snail that was now doing so much damage. There were many other pests that required prompt attention. Sir Walter Buller said that the best enemy to snails was the woodhen. 3. “On Heterostyled Trimorphism in New Zealand Fuchsias, with Notes on the Characters of the Species,” by T. Kirk, F.L.S. (Transactions, p. 261.)

Annual Meeting: 15th February, 1893. Sir Walter Buller, President, in the chair. New Member.—Mr. Robert Murdoch.