CorzNso.—On the Day in which Cook took possession of N.Z. 99 
similar to the one mentioned, except sticking the end of the spear in the 
ground. I have also seen a native stick an arrow in the ground and then 
whip it into the air. As to the bird spears referred to by Mr. Colenso, I 
am only aware of one, viz, the “pigeon spear." This was made out of à 
piece of rata vine 80 to 40 feet in length, and more resembled a stiff piece 
of rope than a spear, it being perfectly flexible, and could be easily trailed 
through a thick bush—a very desirable acquirement. The head of this spear 
was formed out of one of the human leg bones (fibula), both sharpened 
and jagged. The person using this spear would slowly raise it, balancing it 
as it swayed about, immediately under the bough of the tree upon which 
the pigeon sat, until the point came within a few inches of the bird, then 
by an upward thrust impaling it. So stupid is the pigeon that even now it 
will see its mate shot within a few feet of where it is sitting, perhaps on the 
same branch, and in many instances never attempt to fly away. A shorter 
hand spear may have been used when trapping the brown parrot. All 
these weapons, however, fell into disuse after the introduction of fire-arms 
some sixty years ago, which may account for the disappearance of the bow- 
and-arrow. I think a more extensive paper upon this subject would be of 
service. I have only endeavoured to record a curious method of propulsion 
which arrested my attention. 
[Norg.—See also Sir G. Grey in “Polynesian Mythology,” p. 157; 
"Thomson, in * Story of New Zealand," Vol. I., ch. VII; White in ** Te 
Rou,” p. 116. E».] : 
Arr. VIII.—On the Day in which Captain Cook took formal Possession of New 
| Zealand. By W. Corxxso, F.L.S. 
[Read before the Hawke Bay Philosophical Institute, 13th August, 1877.) 
For several years I have been of opinion that all our colonial almanacs 
are in error on this subject. They all give the 15th of November, 1769, as 
the day'in which Cook took possession of New Zealand in the name of the 
King. This they have always done, and in this they have been followed by 
other publications, both Colonial and British, when speaking of the cireum- 
stance. My object in bringing this matter in a few words plainly before 
you is to initiate an enquiry, which, whether I am right or wrong, will 
serve to settle the question. And I have good reasons for believing that 
what I shall state will cause you all to agree that, at least, there is consider- 
able doubt about it. 
