![Thumbnail: [Volume 27, 1894 page 259]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_27/thumbnails/rsnz_27_00_0284_0259_ac_02.gif)
Conclusion.
In this paper I purposely refrain from making a summary of the various statements therein, for my opinion is that after a lapse of ten or twenty years the subject will be more readily understood when the then history and habits of the three species of rats are remarked on and compared. For example, a careful inquiry should be made at once to discover whether M. rattus is frequent about the stores at different shipping-places, and if any of the Polynesian rats arrive in the small vessels which convey fruit and island produce to New Zealand. If it is correct that the “kiore” came to New Zealand in the Maori canoes from Rarotonga or elsewhere, may not this same arrival of M. maorium to New Zealand be still continned by European shipping at this date? If so, we have no certain proof that the “kiore” was not exterminated and
![Thumbnail: [Volume 27, 1894 page 260]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_27/thumbnails/rsnz_27_00_0285_0260_ac_02.gif)
afterwards reintroduced to New Zealand. The finding of this-rat in such an out-of-the-way place as Wimbledon would almost be conclusive proof that the “kiore” of the Maoris was not exterminated, but was only greatly reduced in numbers.
I am firmly convinced that Dieffenbach found M. rattus in great numbers in the north parts of New Zealand, as far south as Lake Taupo, and Taranaki and Wanganui on the west. But M. rattus was not known in the South Island from Nelson through Canterbury to the Bluff in 1855–57, and if now found at these places it has been recently introduced. In the South Island M. decumanus, and not M. rattus, would compete with or destroy M. maorium. But in the north we are clearly told by Dieffenbach (1840) that the Maoris informed him M. maorium was destroyed by “kore pakeha,” the foreign rat, and that this rat was not the Norway rat, but the English rat (M. rattus).
Note.—M. rattus in country places lives in the forest or field, and is not seen in the houses.
I would direct your notice to the undoubted fact that neither Dieffenbach nor Mr. J. E. Gray, of the British Museum, mentions that the Norway rat (M. decumanus) was found in New Zealand about the year 1840; in proof of which Mr. Gray heads the paragraph thus: “The Rat—Mus rattus, Linn.?” but seems still to have doubts as to what rat is meant, for he says, “It would be interesting to see [that is, himself to see] whether it is the European, the Indian, or the New Holland rat that has been introduced.” By “European” M. rattus is referred to, for you will also notice Dieffenbach in his description says, “which they [the natives] distinguish from the English rat (not the Norway rat) which is introduced.” And further on this is varied-thus: “owing to the extermination carried on against it by the European rat”; and a few lines-further on, “in the same manner as the English rat has exterminated their indigenous rat”: “(not the Norway rat),” which is between brackets, but “the English rat, which is introduced.”—that is, the black rat (M. rattus).
M. decumanus is not mentioned as introduced, but “The-Mouse—Mus musculus.” “The common domestic mouse of Europe has also been introduced.”—Dieffenbach. The cat, pig, horse, ass, sheep, and ox are next mentioned; the dog having previously been spoken of.
This reading of the rat question has seemingly been overlooked by our scientists, and, if it had not been for the heading, “The Rat—Mus rattus,” attracting my notice, I also should possibly have passed it without comment.
Since writing this paper I have found a portion of a rat's-skin which, from the dark under-fur, may have belonged to a “kiore,” M. maorium: upper or back reddish-brown, sprinkled
![Thumbnail: [Volume 27, 1894 page 261]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_27/thumbnails/rsnz_27_00_0286_0261_ac_02.gif)
with black hairs; under or belly and sides a faint sulphur-colour, with dark-bluish down at the base of the yellow-tinted hairs. This down is not visible unless the hair is parted.
When Mr. Gray says, “It would be interesting to see whether it is the European, the Indian, or the New Holland rat that has been introduced,” &c., he has entirely thrown over Dr. Dieffenbach, and is following the leading of Polack, who says, “Called ‘kiore’ by the natives; said to have been introduced at an early period by European vessels.” Take special notice: Gray is speculating on his own account about M. maorium and not alluding to M. rattus. He had never seen specimens of this rat, and is just leading the reader astray. It is extremely probable that Polack is speaking of the black rat, “kiore pakeha.” The “kiore maori” he probably never saw, as it was likely to have at that time become scarce, owing to competition with M. rattus.
You will notice also that Gray follows after Polack on the subject of the dog (kuri), or rather Gray leaves both Polack and Dieffenbach, and, although the latter clearly says this dog was entirely different from the dingo of Australia, yet Gray gives this heading to the paragraph: “The New Holland Dog—Canis familiaris australis, Desm.; Canis dingo, Blumenb.” From this we must on no account take for granted anything interpolated by Gray on the subject of the New Zealand “kiore” or “kuri,” for he knew nothing whatever about either animal.
The rat seen by Dieffenbach, and most probably by Polack, was the progenitor of the black rat which inhabits the north part of New Zealand at the present time, and which rat, until proved otherwise by osteological evidence, we assume to be identical with Mus rattus. This rat, the Maoris told Dieffenbach, was “kiore pakeha,” the foreign or stranger rat.
The first to arrive in New Zealand was “kiore maori.” Then, in a mysterious manner, comes “kiore pakeha,” the black rat. Then, according to Dieffenbach, “the mouse accompanies the early settlers.” (The Norway rat, “pouhawaiki,” last of all.) That is to say, in the North Island. The black rat was not found in the South Island, and there the Norway rat spread inland some years in advance of the mouse, a fact which I recorded in a former paper.