Art. LXIII.—Maori Numeration: Being a Reply to Mr. Elsdon Best's Paper on “Maori Numeration” in Trans. N.Z. Inst., Vol. xxxix. By Hare Hongi. Communicated by A. Hamilton. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 1st September, 1909.] In view of the splendid contributions to science which this Institute has from time to time published in its Transactions and Proceedings, many of which I have read, I have very much pleasure indeed, and no little diffidence, in submitting for consideration an essay of a somewhat critical nature on the subject of Maori numeration. Whilst, however, conceding that many subjects discussed by the Institute are necessarily of a controversial character—that of the moa-bird, for instance, no living specimens of which have been accessible to students—I should like to make my present position quite clear by stating at the outset that there is no important subject in which I myself am interested so little open to controversial and argumentative discussion as that of Maori numeration. Looking back through the century of years just closed, we see its ample field crowded with living Native specimens, with wise men having a just knowledge of this particular subject, and a knowledge which has been readily imparted to the inquirer. Not only so, but the Maori is a keen, an eager debater and controversialist: some of his finest literary remains are found to-day in what are known as “disputation songs”—i.e., waiata tautohetohe, or waiata tautitotito. A great advocate for “correct forms,” one of the readiest phrases which fell from the lips of the elders was “Kia tika,” or Be exact.” And so, although disputes have been waged abroad on a thousand-and-one subjects of historical uncertainty and interest—such as that of descent, ancestry, traditional canoes, the introduction of the kumara tuber, causes of intertribal warfare, women, lands, and even to so minute a question as the interpretation of an historical passage or the primary meaning of a certain historical term—no marked disputation concerning either principle or detail of the system of numeration as regularly taught and practised by him has been recorded. The inference is obvious. The Maori system of numeration as generally known is at once so methodical in its arrangements, so well defined in its parts, and so comprehensive in its form that apparently no sufficient ground for disputation has presented itself. These preliminary observations are suggested by the recent perusal of an article on Maori numeration, by Mr. Elsdon Best, which appears in the Transactions of this Institute (vol.xxxix, p. 150). Mr. Best has been long and very favourably known as a sturdy contributor to the pages of Maori literature, and containing, as his productions usually do, a large proportion of purely Native material, he has placed on record a quantity of most interesting, useful, and highly informing original Native matter. In the voluminous article under notice, however, it is strikingly apparent that Mr. Best has deviated widely from his usual course. The Native originals which he presents are comparatively few, and those few unimportant and misleading. He wanders far outside the area of Maori research, and, as a consequence, he appears to have done himself and his subject alike a very grave injustice. In the weakness of his authorities, in the enlarging of his field, and in labouring to prove that which is not possible, Mr. Best exhibits