550 



NA TURE 



[October 4, 1900 



wide currency in Australia. The former I connect with early 

 Papuan influence, the latter more especially with Malay. He 

 objects on the ground that connectives of " mama" are more 

 common in the Malay districts of the Eastern Archipelago than 

 "bapa." But in Australia the word " mama " occurs only in 

 the extreme S.W. and S.E., among the purest modern repre- 

 sentatives of the earliest occupants of Australia, thus affording 

 ground for the conclusion that the term " mama " preceded the 

 term "bapa." The wide prevalence of "bapa" forms in other 

 countries I myself refer to on page 44 ; but the question is, What 

 race was specially influential in giving such forms currency in 

 Australia? As against my position it is not sufficient for Mr. 

 Ray to say that " mama " variants are of more frequent occur- 

 rence in Malay centres than "bapa" variants, he will have to 

 prove that the words of " mama" type are not adopted words 

 in Malay, were not earlier in use in the East Indian Archipelago 

 than the other type of words, and are not more markedly 

 Papuan than these. 



Mr. Ray complains that individual words in the languages 

 quoted "are not always accurately given or properly under- 

 stood." This may be ; but like himself I am dependent upon my 

 authorities. When further on he suggests that I might have 

 attempted uniformity of spelling in the foreign words, he is like 

 the "children sitting in the market-place." A desire to be free 

 from suspicion of tampering with my borrowed materials kept 

 me from applying to them a uniform system of spelling, and 

 evidently my caution was not unnecessary. 



Mr. Ray's harshness is all the more indefensible since he him- 

 self falls demonstrably into error on the very point upon which 

 he proposes to correct me. As proof of my mistaking the form 

 and meaning of words, he cites the New Guinea numerals 

 (pp. 165, 169). He says they are explainable compounds. He 

 does not, however, attempt to explain them. But even if they 

 are, this fact alone does not prove that they could not be trans- 

 mitted to Australia. One feature about Australian numerals is 

 clearly shown in my tables, viz. that they occur geographically 

 in lines that converge on Cape York Peninsula. Some of them 

 are most certainly identical with forms in use on Saibai Island 

 on the New Guinea coast, ^.^. "woorba," with variants trace- 

 able along the Queensland coast from a point about 1000 miles 

 S.E. of Cape York, and represented in the form "warapune" 

 Prince of Wales Island, "woorapoo" at Warrior Island, and 

 in " urapon " at Saibai. One numeral, " luadi " (two), used 

 by the Kalkadoon tribe, whose territory is about 150 miles south 

 of the Gulf of Carpentaria and some 600 miles S.W. of Cape 

 York, is a Melanesian numeral. It did not ily that distance 

 through the air. And there is just as little doubt about the iden- 

 tity of at least several of the other Australian numerals with the 

 New Guinea forms to which I have related them. My table of 

 numerals was not formed rashly. It will be worth Mr. Ray's 

 while to examine and test it carefully. The convergence of 

 numerals upon Cape York Peninsula is only one striking illus- 

 tration of what occurs in the case of other words, and words 

 thus traced to the very coast must have come from New Guinea 

 and adjacent islands. 



As another example of my misunderstanding words, Mr. Ray 

 refers to my " ori kaiza," pp. 66-7. He says: " Ori kaiza" 

 is mongrel, " ori " (bird) is Toaripi, Papuan Gulf, and "kaiza " 

 (big thing) is Saibai, West Torres Straits. This is, for himself, 

 a most unfortunate example. Although he speaks so authori- 

 tatively, he is utterly at fault. Sir W. MacGregor s reports give 

 " uroi " (bird) as a Saibai word ; and even Mr. Ray himself, 

 in his paper already quoted from, gives " urui " as Saibai for 

 'bird,' a fact he appears to have forgotten. Besides, in the 

 " Voyage of the Raitlesnake,^'' containing vocabularies obtained 

 in 1849 from a white woman who had been among the natives 

 for four and a half years, McGillivray gives " wuroi " as a Cape 

 York word, and " ure " as a Kowrarega word, both meaning 

 bird. Mr. Ray's assertion, therefore, that " ori kaiza " is mon- 

 grel, is contrary to fact, and my tracing of this compound word 

 across Australia from S.W. to N. E. , and to the New Guinea coast, 

 is not in the least invalidated by Mr. Ray's groundless and 

 inconsistent statement that the word is mongrel. 



Mr. Ray characterises my comparison of Australian words 

 with Malay and New Hebridean as "absurd and misleading." 

 This may be so to one with his pre-conceptions, but certainly 

 not fiom the point of view which I have taken of the rela- 

 tion subsisting between the races whose words are compared. If 

 the Tasmanians were the original occupants, both of Australia 

 and the greater part of Melanesia, which is my hypothesis, it 



NO. 1 6 14, VOL. 62J 



is not unreasonable to suppose that certain radicals would be 

 common to Tasmanians, Australians and Melanesians proper. 

 And further, one of the most competent authorities on the 

 Oceanic languages, the Rev. Dr. MacDonald, of Efate, is of 

 opinion that Malay, Melanesian and Polynesian are sis'er 

 languages derived originally from one mother tongue. If he 

 be right, there would be no absurdity in affirming analogies 

 between Malay and New Hebridean words. But I have in- 

 cluded the Malay with a note almost like an apology. I only 

 cite eight Malay words, and the only conclusions I draw con- 

 cerning the Malay in this connection is " The terms for father, 

 skin, are the same in Malay, Australian and New Hebridean " 

 (page 156). 



I would have liked to have shown that the Melanesians 

 proper have had much more influence upon the Australians 

 than Mr. Ray seems to have any conception of, but I have 

 already taken up so much space that I must content myself with 

 saying that this proposition can be successfully maintained, and 

 with your indulgence I hope in a future letter to make good my 

 words. In conclusion, I would just say that I welcome fair and 

 sound criticism based on accurate knowledge for its influence in 

 promoting truth, but mere fault-finding and ridicule can benefit 

 neither authors nor readers. One sentence from my reviewer in 

 the Saturday Review may not be out of place here : — " If Mr. 

 Mathew has not proved his theories to the satisfaction of all his 

 readers, it is not from lack of knowledge or scientific methods, 

 but from the imperfection of his materials." 



Coburg, Victoria, August 16. John Mathew. 



THE PRESERVATION OF BIG GAME IN 

 AFRICA. 

 ■pAST experience in America and South Africa shows 

 -^ how rapidly the teeming millions born of the soil 

 may be shot out. Writers of half a century ago describe 

 on the veldt in South Africa a paradise of varied life, 

 which is now irretrievably lost, through the carelessness 

 and wastefulness of white men. Some species have 

 absolutely disappeared, never to be seen again on the 

 face of the earth. Others are so scarce that it is doubtful 

 whether their power of reproduction can save the race. 

 The fact that an International Conference, attended by 

 delegates from Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and 

 the Congo Free State, on the subject of the preservation 

 of the game from destruction in Africa, met recently in 

 London, under the auspices of our Foreign Office, shows 

 that a widespread interest is now taken in this subject. 

 Let us see how the matter stood previous to the meeting 

 of the Conference — at least as regards British territory. 



Excluding the settled parts of South Africa which were 

 outside the purview of the Conference, we may observe, 

 in the first place, that our Foreign Office appears to be 

 thoroughly alive to the urgency of the question in those 

 territories under their jurisdiction. They had enacted 

 game regulations which ought to have been effective for 

 their purpose. A 25/. license was imposed upon strangers, 

 and one of 3/. upon residents and of^cials, as a necessary 

 condition of shooting, while the licensees were limited 

 to two specimens in the case of elephants, rhinoceros, 

 hippopotamus, buffalo and giraffe. Fines up to 500 

 rupees, and imprisonment for two months, were the maxi- 

 mum penalties. Above all, Reserves for the game were 

 defined. Similar regulations to the above were in force 

 in German territory ; but let us confine our attention to 

 British East Africa as an example with which I am 

 familiar. Here, on the best feeding grounds, there are 

 vast herds of wildebeest, hartebeest, impala, zebras, 

 gazelles of several species, and in lesser numbers water- 

 buck, giraffes and rhinoceros. All these, and others, 

 may be seen from the windows of the train as it traverses 

 the new Uganda railway, which has now been con- 

 structed to a point about two-thirds of the way to Lake 

 Victoria. The Kenia province, which is about 100 miles 

 by 40, has been constituted a game Reserve. Other 

 Reserves have been established in Uganda and British 

 Central Africa. Each of the Foreign Powers engaged 



