5152 Tue ZooLocist—NoveMBER, 1876. 
“T have been told that the present race inhabiting New Zealand must 
have been cotemporaneous with the Dinornis, because the word ‘moa’ forms 
part of the designation of several localities in New Zealand, but this occur- 
rence might be explained in several ways. In the first instance, it is very 
possible that the word ‘ moa’ in those names is only the alteration of another 
word in course of time, because words having the same, or uearly the same, 
sound, are not unfrequent in the Maori language, such as moa, a bed ina 
garden, a certain stone; moana, sea; moa-ta, to be early ; moe, sleep or 
dream; moho, a bird; mou, for thee; or, moua, the back of the neck; or 
that the natives used the expression to designate localities where moa-bones 
were principally found. Another explanation might be given by pointing 
out that the word ‘moa’ is used in connection with other birds. Thus I may 
quote from the Rev. Richard Taylor's ‘A Leaf from the Natural History of 
New Zealand’ (Wellington, 1848), the following expressions :—‘ Moa kerua, 
a black bird with red bill and feet, a water hen; moa koru, very small rail; 
moeriki, rail of the Chatham Islands.’ And may we not therefore conclude 
that if the Maoris had known anything of the Dinornis, the present repre- 
sentative of the genus,—which, in appearance, form and plumage, most 
probably closely resembles some of the extinct gigantic forms,—would have 
been in preference named by them moa-iti, or some similar appellation, 
instead of calling Apteryx Owenii, kiwi, from its peculiar call; and Apteryx 
Australis, tokoeka and roa! The fact that they added, instead,—to the 
names of birds resembling somewhat the domestic fowl,—the prefix moa, 
might be taken as an additional confirmation of the probability that the 
theories advanced by me are correct. And how can we reconcile the 
difference in the statements concerning the plumage, which, according to 
one account, consisted of magnificent plumes on the head and tail, whilst, 
according to the other, it resembled that of the Apteryx? Another point of 
importance must strike the observer, concerning Maori nomenclature. If 
the present race had known anything of the Dinornis, should we not expect 
that several and very distinct names would have been preserved to us for 
the different species? We may safely assume that the moa-hunting races 
had different names for the huge Dinornis giganteus, D. robustus, and for 
Palapteryx ingens, for the smaller and more slender species of Dinornis 
casuarinus and D. didiformis, as well as for the stout-set Dinornis elephan- 
topus and D. crassus, which, moreover, were doubtless distinguished by 
different habits and modes of life. Instead of that, we find them speaking 
of the ‘moa’ indiscriminately—a word extensively used all over the Poly- 
nesian Islands.” 
In the third of the papers above referred to, Dr. Haast criticises 
the views of Dr. Hector, Mr. Murison, and Mr. Mantell upon the 
subject under discussion, and, notwithstanding some very cogent 
