On a Discovery of Bones of Dinornis giganteus on the surface

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 27, 1894, Page 655

Sir James Hector exhibited some moa-bones found by Mr. T. E. Donne in the Wairarapa district. The chief interest is from the position in which these bones occur. Mr. Donne says that” when deer-stalking on the 10th April last he found the bones on the top of the Maungaraki Range, seven miles eastward of Gladstone. They were lying on the surface on the top of the mountain, and free from bush. Some were exposed to the air, but others were covered by a heavy growth of thistles. None were covered by earth. They had evidently lain in the same position for a long time. No traces of old native encampments were found in the vicinity.” The bones are the right and left femora of Dinornis giganteus, and the right tibia and tarso-metatarsus of the same bird. The fibula is not present, but the diagram sketched by Mr. Donne shows that the tarsal bone has been rolled over without disturbing the relative positions of the other bones. This observation is supported by an examination of the weathered surfaces of the bones, and there can be little doubt that the bones have been lying undisturbed on the surface since the bird died. This remarkable discovery has suggested the comparison of the degree to which mineralization of moa-bones has been effected, as compared with the mineral contents of recent bones of struthious birds. Omitting water, which is variable according to the nature of the material in which the subfossil bones were imbedded, we have the following:— Organic. Inorganic. Recent. Ostrich, femur 34.86 60.14 Emu, femur 36.67 63.33 Subfossil Dinornis rheides, Timaru Cave 35.65 64.35 Dinornis ponderosus; Maniototo (dry swamp) 25.31 74.60 Dinornis validus, Glenmark 29.95 70.05 Dinornis struthioides, Glenmark 24.18 75.82 Dinornis giganteus, Wairarapa (surface) 24.10 76.90 Dinornis potens, Shelter Rock, Clyde 18.25 81.75 Dinornis casuarinus, Highfield Cave 14.70 85.30 Dinornis didiformis, in pumice.sand 14.40 85.10 Cnemiornis didiformis, Highfield Cave 14.70 85.30 Dinornis didiformis 25.99 74.01 Dinornis struthioides 37.86 62.94 Attention was drawn to the wonderful discoveries of bones on the surface in South Australia. Under sand-dunes 30ft. in height, far in the interior and round the margins of desiccated lakes, there is a 3ft. deposit of yellow and blue clay resting on sharp sand which is full of bones of extinct animals. The deposit is fifty miles long by five to ten miles wide; but similar deposits have now been found in other parts of Australia. Most of the bones belong to extinct forms of marsupial Mammalia, but

some large forms of birds have also been discovered. They are, however, very different from, our New Zealand forms, as may be seen from the following comparison:— Australian. New Zealand (Dinornis). Skull, length 12in. 14in. to 3.8in. Femur, " 12in. 6.0in. to 18.5in. Tibia, " 24in. 10.1in. to 39.0in. Tarsal, " 14in. 4.8in. to 21.5in. Wings Complete None. Mr. Travers supported Wallace's views in reference to the condition of Australia in Pliocene times. There was no doubt, a land-connection between New Caledonia and New Zealand, which would account for the large birds found here. There is evidence of such a land-connection between eastern Australia and New Zealand where the sea is shallow. The occurrence of the moa-bones found on the surface no doubt goes to prove that the moa did exist within a comparatively recent period. Mr. Phillips said that bones such as those mentioned would, if in the open, last a long time; but in the bush or in a stream they would soon decay. He thought the moa had been seen during Maori times. He had called Sir James Hector's attention to the Diprotodon. He thought the dry climate would account for this preservation. Why should the moa die out, and the emu and other large birds remain? He agreed with Mr. Travers regarding the former land-connection. Mr. Hudson called attention to Mr. Darwin's observations regarding the time it required for bones or other objects on the surface to become buried by earthworms: possibly his observations would make it possible to arrive at a more exact date for the disappearance of moa-bones. Mr. Tanner thought that the moa did exist in Maori times. Lots of well-preserved bones had been found on the banks of the Oreti River, in the old Maori cooking-ovens—even the delicate neck-bones, which could not last very long on the ground. Mr. McLeod thought it would be a good thing to have the earth in or on which the bones were found analysed, to ascertain if it contained anything that would prove that bones had been buried there. Mr. McKay said the Maoris might have seen the moa thirty years ago, especially judging from the bones on the table. The bones might have been buried, and exposed afterwards. They had been found at Benmore, in the south, on the bare rock, and they could not have remained there long without decay. Mr. Tregear said that, as he was the only representative present of the “traditionalists” in the moa controversy, he would say a few words. When geologists made a distinct statement that such and such moa-bones were found on the surface, there could be no debate; positive statements by experts had to be received without question. But what those who thought with him refused to accept was a large quantity of so-called evidence that the Maoris had ever known the Dinornis as a living bird. On the contrary, there was strong evidence for thinking that, whoever the natives were that had assisted in destroying the Dinornis, the Polynesian Maoris had not. The very word “moa” (whatever it meant) was alluded to as “lost” in a song of ancient days—one of the oldest songs collected in the South Island by the Rev. Mr. Stack. Why allusions should be made by Maoris to the moa having perished centuries ago, if it was still alive during the last thirty years, is one of the things which are hard to explain. Sir James Hector, in reply, said it was well to keep this subject alive. Both sides had yet to ascertain how the matter really stands, and it would be well for observers to note the exact position of bones found in various localities, and the kind of soil in which they occur, for bones become quite different under different circumstances of deposit. The

question should not be considered closed by either party. Mr. Mantell had lately found a letter from Professor Owen to his father, enclosing the professor's first paper on the moa, and he says that there is less information in it regarding the moa than he (Mr. Mantell) could obtain at that time from many-natives on the beach. 2. “Notes on the Larger Species of Paryphanta in New Zealand, with some Remarks on the Distribution and Dispersal of Land-shells,” by W. T. L. Travers, F.L.S. (Transactions, p. 224.) Sir J. Hector had a number of the Picton shells alive for some time; he did not think they were carnivorous. He thought we had only two species, and the difference in colour depended on the colour of the trees on which they live. Mr. Hudson said this was a most interesting and instructive paper. Mr. Travers, in reply, said what he wished to call attention to was the wide distribution of these shells, which had not been sufficiently considered in making collections.