ing”) a wounded sheep, and with the uncertainty which existed at that time as to the true culprit it might easily have turned out that some other animal had wounded the sheep, and the keas had only been attracted by its struggles. It seems from later investigations that the sheep had been killed by the keas, but the record here is only on circumstantial evidence, which can never, by itself, satisfactorily prove a scientific theory. In the third instance, these shepherds jumped to the conclusion that because the other sheep had some wool pulled out the keas must have done it. This shows that when men are anxious to prove a point almost anything is taken as conclusive evidence, even though there is not the slightest reason for doing so.

This early record, though not conclusive, is very important, because it points out in what direction the true sheep-killer may be discovered; but before taking this supposition as correct a very exhaustive examination should have been made for several years, to see if further researches confirmed the evidence of these men. However, though nearly fifty years have passed since the record was first published, there has not been one genuine attempt to inquire into the case, and up to the end of 1905 this is the only definite case recorded where a man actually saw a kea picking at a live sheep. Of course, many articles have been written, both in magazines and scientific works, but I cannot find one writer who says that he ever saw a kea attack a sheep, nor is the name of any man given who said that he had seen the bird at work.

It has been since proved that there were, and are at the present time, many men who have been eye-witnesses to the birds' depredations, but from the available records in 1905 not one could be found. It seems a great pity that men of scientific standing should publish in their books, on such paltry evidence, as though it were an undoubtedly proved fact, that the kea had become not only carnivorous, but a bird of prey. I think I am justified in saying that, up to 1905, all the literature that had been published stating the kea was guilty of the crime has been giving to the world as a fact a statement which has never been satisfactorily proved.

If there is anything that wants to be most conclusively proved it is a scientific fact, and as long as investigators continue to publish as true half-proved theories, only error and confusion can be the result. As might be expected from such unsatisfactory evidence, later investigations do not always uphold these hasty conclusions jumped at by early writers.

It is rather surprising to find that no one questioned the weight of the evidence until 1900, when Dr. L. Cockayne, the

retiring President of the Canterbury Philosophical Institute, while reading a paper “On some Little-known Country in the Waimakariri District,” made the following statement: “I have never seen it [the kea] attack sheep, nor have I ever met with any one—shepherd, musterer, or mountaineer traveler—who has done so; the most that my inquiries have elicited is that sheep are found from time to time with holes in their backs, and that keas have been seen hovering around sheep.” A very warm discussion followed, and from that time people have been looking into the evidence. The result has been that there are more people who disbelieve the kea's guilt to-day than there were ten years ago. Dr. Cockayne and his supporters do not state that the kea is innocent, but that at the present time the recorded evidence in not strong enough to condemn the bird.

Let us glance through the most conclusive recorded evidence, and see on what grounds the bird's guilt has been declared proved. The late Mr. T. H. Potts (N) condemns the kea from what appears to be hearsay evidence only. He writes, “Through the kind offices of Mr. Robt. Wilkin the writer has been greatly assisted with valuable notes, acquired by sheep-farmers, owners of stations, shepherds, &c.” Unfortunately, Mr. Potts does not state that any of his informants ever saw a kea at work, or whether the notes were merely the sheep-station rumours, of which a bookful could be collected to-day. Again, he does not seem to have seen the bird attacking sheep, but as his guarantee mentions the names of several men, but there is nothing to show that even these men were eye-witnesses.

In 1878 the Hon. D. Menzies (Q), writing a paper on the kea, is certain of the kea's guilt, but he also does not give his authority, which, however, is evidently some shepherds.

Sir Walter Buller (J, a, b, c; R) gives a complete description of the bird, and also an illustration of a kea attacking a sheep, but again no eye-witness is mentioned, with the exception of a shepherd, who said that a kea attacked some sheep while he was driving them. There is no name given, and so we do not know who the man was or anything about him.

In 1884 Reischek (T, a) wrote an article giving his actual experience with the kea, but though he saw them eating the carcases, and also found wool and fat in their crops, he never saw one attack a sheep.

Mr. F. F. C. Huddlestone (M), in 1891, wrote an account of his experience in kea country, and condemned the bird, but in his account he never states that he saw the sheep attacked by one.