EARLY RECORDS. 79 



What Mr. White or his brother saw is not recorded, and 

 I think that, if a Kea had been seen attacking a sheep, that 

 fact would ahnost certainly have been included in the paper. 

 [ have since had a letter from Mr. T. White, in which he 

 states that he never saw a Kea attack a sheep. 



In February, 1906, at a meeting of runholders held at 

 Culverden. some strong remarks were made about the loss of 

 sheep caused by the Kea, and the Wellington Philosophical 

 Society was ridiculed for upholding the statement that at the 

 present time the recorded evidence against the Kea was not 

 sufficient to condemn it. However, in spite of all their talk, 

 only one speaker was reported to have seen the Kea attacking 

 sheep. The rest all spoke from hearsay, and I have since 

 received a letter from the reported eye-witness, stating that 

 the newspaper had misrepresented his remarks, for he had 

 not said any such thing at the meeting. This meeting was 

 the means of leading many people to believe in the Kea's 

 guilt ; and yet, when the evidence there available was sifted, 

 not one man had seen the Kea in the act of attacking. 



This is the pith of the recorded evidence up to the end 

 of 1905, and, in spite of all that has been written on the 

 subject, I was unable to find the name of one writer who 

 said that he had seen the bird attacking sheep. 



Though the evidence of eye-witnesses was lacking, the 

 circumstantial evidence was very strong, and may be classed 

 as follows: — 



I. Against the Kea : — 



a. The account of the Wanaka shepherds. 



b. Only where Keas were known to live were the 

 sheep wounded after the Kea's method. Where 

 they were unknown, no instance of this special 

 kind of sheep-killing had been seen. 



c. If sheep had been killed, and the birds in that 

 place were shot, the killing at that place ceased. 



d. Keas had been seen to fly off the bodies of 

 sheep, and wool and fat had been found in their 

 crops. 



