sheep first wandered into the keas' domains the birds mistook them for the woolly-like plants, and, with the idea of digging out the grubs, they began to tear open the skin of the sheep. In this way the keas are supposed to have acquired the method of killing the sheep and eating the flesh.

This all sounds very feasible, but on further investigation it is found that the true facts do not support the theory.

Firstly, where the keas were first known to attack sheep—namely, around Lake Wanaka—the “vegetable sheep” do not, according to Dr. Cockayne, grow to such a size that they might be mistaken for sheep; in fact, Raoulia eximia does not occur there at all, and many mosses, &c., are often as conspicuous as the Otago species of Raoulia. The true “vegetable sheep” (Haastia pulvinaris) does not even come as far south as Canterbury, and Raoulia eximia does not go farther south than Mount Ida in Central Otago, its only known Otago habitat. Therefore it appears that where the kea first acquired the habit of killing sheep the “vegetable sheep” is practically unknown.

Secondly, I have never found any grubs in the “vegetable sheep,” though I have pulled many up, and I have read and heard of no one who has seen grubs in these plants of such a size or numerous enough to attract the kea. The only supposed reference that I can find is in an article by the Hon. Dr. Menzies, M.L.C. (Q), in 1878. He says, “They suppose that these birds [keas] formerly fed chiefly on berries and the large white grubs abounding in the mossy vegetation on the hills.” Whether Dr. Menzies, or the shepherds from whom he received his information, mistook the “vegetable sheep” for a lichen or moss, as many people do, I cannot say.

Thirdly, when keas first attacked sheep, and up to the present day, they seemed to confine their attacks to the shoulder or rump, the latter in preference. Now, if the keas were in the first instances looking for grubs, then they would almost be sure to work right along the whole length of the back; but in the accounts that I have seen this is certainly not the case.

Fourthly, if the keas feed on these grubs that are supposed to live in the “vegetable sheep,” one would expect to hear of the plant being found in a partly torn-up condition. However, I can find no instance of the plants being seen in this condition, and, though I have been upon the ranges where keas and “vegetable sheep” are both numerous, I have always found the plants intact.

It seems to me that unless further evidence is forthcoming to support this theory it must be left out of consideration.

2. The Curiosity Theory.—Some writers think that it is nothing but the kea's insatiable curiosity and destructive-

ness that has got it into the habit of sheep-killing. Taking into account the bird's love of investigating anything that is at all strange, it is suggested that when the sheep first appeared in the birds' domains they became at once the centre of attraction. The keas would, no doubt, walk round the sheep and inspect it, and finally hop on to the animal's back. When the sheep commenced to run the bird would most likely fall off, but by repeated attempts it would at last find the way to hold on. Once on the sheep's back, the kea most naturally would begin to pull out the wool and finally find his way down to the flesh. In this way he would soon find out how to get food from a living sheep.

Again, if a number of sheep were half buried in the snow, their position would be quite strange enough to attract the keas, and with their natural love of tearing they would soon find their way to the animal's flesh.

It seems to me that this theory has much in its favour, and may account to some extent for the bird's change of diet.

3. The Hunger Theory. — The supporters of this theory suggest that it was the lack of ordinary food that caused the kea to attack sheep. They say that when the ground was covered with snow and frozen hard the birds would have a difficulty in finding sufficient food. Being pressed by hunger, they would visit the meat-gallows at the homesteads and feed on the meat, skins, offal, &c., and in this way they would soon acquire a liking for meat. Having once acquired the taste, they would next take to eating dead sheep or sheep caught in the snow, and finally take to tackling the live animals.

4. The Maggot Theory.—This is a slight modification of the hunger theory, and was first suggested by Dr. Menzies (Q) in 1878. He says, “They suppose that these birds formerly fed chiefly on berries and the large white grubs abounding in mossy vegetation on the hills, and that after the country was stocked they—first by feeding on maggots and insects on dead sheep, and afterwards on dead animals—acquired not only the taste for meat, but also a discrimination of the choice parts. By-and-by they attacked living sheep, and their upper mandible enabled them quickly to tear open the skin.”

Reischek (T, a), in 1885, supports this theory, and says, “My opinion is that these birds became carnivorous through being numerous when sheep were introduced, and feeding on maggots which soon appear on carcases of sheep dying on the runs, and have thus probably acquired such a liking for the fatty matter that it has emboldened them to attack live sheep.”

This theory seems to have much in favour of it, especially when we remember that the kea is naturally insectivorous.