80 THE KEA. 



e. Some Keas in captivity would eat meat, fat, 

 skins, etc. 



At first sight this evidence seems quite conclusive enough 

 to condemn the Kea, but we must remember that 

 circumstantial evidence can never by itself prove a scientific 

 fact. 



To see how far we can err from the truth by depending 

 on this kind of proof, we have only to go back to the 

 days of supposed witchcraft and note how an English court 

 of law condemned many people to punishment and death for 

 what it honestly believed to be an undoubted fact. We can 

 see, now, how the level-headed men of those times came to 

 an absolutely wrong decision, because the evidence that seemed 

 so conclusive was merely circumstantial. 



On the other side there was also some evidence to show 

 that the Kea might be innocent. This may be classed as 

 follows : — 



II. For the Kea : 



a. The lack of the records of eye-witnesses. 



b. In many places where Keas were known to live, 

 no sheep had been killed after the Kea's method. 



c. Many Keas in captivity would not eat meat, etc. 



d. Many of the men who accused the bird were paid 

 for exterminating them, and they would naturall.y 

 wish the story to be believed. 



Over this circumstantial evidence a war of words has 

 waged for many years, and once or twice it has seemed as 

 if the Kea would be exterminated before the question was 

 finally settled. 



In order to try to bring this important question to a 

 final conclusion, I set to work to collect written statements 

 from actual eye-witnesses, who lived or had lived in Kea 

 country, and by carefully sifting and arranging this evidence 

 to obtain the actual facts about this interesting bird. 



In response to several requests, kindly published for me 

 by the newspapers, I have received a large amount of 

 evidence from men who live, or have lived, in the Kea 

 country, viz., musterers, shepherds, head-shepherds, managers 

 of stations, runholders, and station owners. 



