272 Transactions. 



ing ") a wounded sheep, aud with the uncertainty which ex- 

 isted 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 con- 

 clusive 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-ldller 

 may be discovered; but before taking this supposition as cor- 

 rect 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 paw a kea picking at a Uve 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, ou 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 litera- 

 ture 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 iiivestigators 

 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 



