![Thumbnail: [Volume 25, 1892 page 504]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_25/thumbnails/rsnz_25_00_0633_0504_ac_02.gif)
Art. LXXII.—On Remains of the Moa in the Forest.
[Read before the Hawke's Bay Philosophical Institute, 11th July, 1892.]
When engaged in sowing grass-seed lately, on a broad clearing, I was greatly surprised to notice a collection of broken bones, intermixed with a number of highly-polished stones, which evidently were the gizzard-stones from a large bird. It is worthy of special notice that this collection was simply on the surface of the clay soil and not in the least buried, and only occupied an area of 6ft. square. As the surface of the ground had a considerable incline downward to the small gully near by, it might be supposed that any objects placed on the surface would have in the course of years a tendency to move downward into the gully-bottom. This does not seem to have been the case with these fragments, which to the finder had the same appearance as if they had not been there more than some fifteen years or thereabout.
What effect the bush-fire—that is, the burning of the felled timber—had on them I cannot say, as, to my judgment, they show no signs of burning—that is to say, such of the bones as now remain, the largest fragment of which is only some 5in. long. But it is difficult to understand how anything was left after the fire passing over. Perhaps to their position on the edge of a previous burn and of the later fire they may in a measure owe their preservation.
One of the larger pieces of bone is remarkable for a honeycomb appearance on the inside. The fragments of bone are required as evidence of the large size of the bird which made use of the stones to grind his food. These stones are by no means large compared with the size of the bird, the largest stone being only 1.½in. long by 1in. across. Three others average about 1 square inch, for they may be described as very thick compared with those I remember seeing in Canterbury nearly forty years ago, which were of a kind of white quartz, broad, long, and flat, as if partly prepared for setting in a brooch. Quartz stones are not to be found here: in fact, birds find a difficulty in getting the fine-grained stones which they affect. For instance, I lately took a very large piece of glass from the gizzard of a domestic fowl, and accounted for its great thickness by supposing it was from the thick bottom of a large bottle. Its point and edges had become smooth and rounded, but it must have been full of cutting edges when swallowed. The moa-stones under description are
![Thumbnail: [Volume 25, 1892 page 505]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_25/thumbnails/rsnz_25_00_0634_0505_ac_02.gif)
of material which I do not know in sitû or detached, but would describe them as a pale-coloured indurated slate, a grey, blue, or drab colour, or white with a shade of a darker colour difficult to explain; and they range in size down to that of a large pea, or, rather, small bean, for they are none of them round, showing that the action of the gizzard is not rotary, but what a sailor would describe as “a rubbing fore and aft.” Some of these stones are of a square form; others long, and having only three corners. Most of them are so finely polished that on placing one near the tips of the fingers on the open hand they immediately slide inward to the palm, and my hand is by no means smooth, owing to the frequent use of the axe. I have little doubt the bird would have preferred a quartz stone if procurable, for even the fowl is very particular in its choice, and can be seen to pick up a pebble and pinch or, as it were, nibble it in the bill, and if it prove deficient it is at once laid aside, but if it stands the test it is swallowed.
I have no knowledge of any proof that the moa lived in the tangled forests of New Zealand, and always supposed them to inhabit grassy plains or fern-clad hills. That they fed on fernroot I have evidence in collecting the fibres of fern after they left the bird. There are remains of moa to be found on the open land of the coast some fourteen miles distant, and this bird might have travelled up the watercourse in a dry summer; but, in that case, how would he do for a drink?—for I have during one hot season seen the water near by completely dried up.
To me this find is remarkable owing to the place being in the virgin forest, and also because I have never heard of the gizzard-stones being found in conjunction with the bones of the bird which carried them. Still, on the other hand, we know that if the most of the bones are undecayed, and remain in the exact place where the bird died, the stones, which do not suffer from decay in like proportion, must therefore be still in juxtaposition with the bones, unless removed by the hand of man. The aboriginal man might possibly have considered the inside of the moa a great delicacy; in that case the gizzard would be taken away, and the stones would not be found in situ.