Colenso. — On the Native Dog of New Zealand. 501 



Zealand dog really was from these of Messrs. White and 

 Co.: — 



" It appears, therefore, from the united testimony of the 

 first visitors to this country, that the ancient New Zealand 

 dog was much like those of Tahiti and other South Sea isles — 

 that it was merely a domestic animal, small in size, with 

 pointed nose, prick ears, and very little eyes ; that it was 

 dull, stupid, and ugly ; that it was of various colours — white, 

 black, brown, and parti-coloured — with lank long hair, and a 

 short bushy tail ; that it was fed on fish and refuse offal, and 

 that it was quiet, lazy, and sullen, had little or no scent, and 

 had no proper bark." (" On the Ancient Dog of the New- 

 Zealanders," Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. x., p. 146.) 



It was Darwin, I believe, who remarked very truly 

 " that the effects of false inferences are but of little moment, 

 for every one feels a pleasure in setting them straight ; but 

 that false facts are most dangerous, because there may be 

 but few who can point out their untruth."" 



And Dr. Marshall also has similar remarks at the close 

 of his narrative ; which, being made much earlier, and with 

 sole reference to New Zealand matters, I quote here: "In 

 the preceding narrative I have endeavoured to relate events 

 in the exact order of their occurrence, leaving facts to speak 

 for themselves, and principally solicitous of putting true facts 

 on record. For all facts are not true, seeing that some things 

 are said to be facts that never had an existence at all, except 

 in the imagination of the narrator or in the credulity of the 

 retailer. And some facts are so stated as to be what Dr. 

 Cullen calls false facts, either by the omission of something 

 that happened, which if added would alter their character, 

 or by the addition of something that never happened, which 

 from being added to that which did happen changes truth into 

 falsehood ; the one producing the effect of wrong perspective, 

 the other of faulty colouring or distortive caricature." (L.c, 

 p. 234.) 



Again, when Mr. White and his helpers come to legendary 

 and mythical Maori, and also Polynesian, stories of dogs, I 

 have nothing to say. It only shows how badly off he (and 

 they) must be for fitting evidence. With them all such fables 

 are as truths. And yet Mr. White says, " The Maoris of the 

 present day are not reliable sources for information on the 

 kicri." (Paper, p. 554.) Jam satis! And, again, though he 

 informs us that he does not know the Maori language save 

 " through an inexpert interpreter," yet he profoundly (!) ety- 

 mologically argues from certain Maori names of things, and 

 that in a most strange manner: e.g. (he says), the Maoris 



* Journal of Anthropological Institute, August, 1890, p. 43. 



