Huttoy.—On the Geographical Relations of the N.Z. Fauna. 231 
he has any proof of the existence of a dog in New Zealand before the arrival 
of man, and the difference of date of these cooking-places for which Dr. Haast 
contends, is denied by many observers, and his argument derived from the 
presence or absence of ground stone implements has, I think, been successfully 
controverted. I can therefore attach no weight to the absence of gnawed 
bones. On the other hand, there is the fact that no indigenous dog or rat has 
ever been found on an island that was not inhabited by other Mammalia, and 
when we remember that Marsupials came into existence long before rats and 
dogs, it is difficult to see how the latter could possibly get to any country 
without the former coming also. It is evident that neither Banks, nor 
Solander, nor the Forsters, considered the dog and rat that they found in New 
Zealand as a new species, or they would certainly have mentioned it ; neither 
did Lesson in 1827, nor Quoy and Gaimard in 1831. Dr. Dieffenbach, in 
1842, was the first to state that a frugivorous rat, distinct from M. rattus, 
existed in New Zealand; he, probably, not being aware that M. rattus is 
entirely frugivorous. I am therefore of opinion that both the rat and the dog 
were brought by human agency, and it is worth remarking that the Maori 
traditions relate that they brought both with them. (Travers, Trans. N.Z. 
Inst., IV., p. 58.) The specimen of Mus gouldi in the Auckland Museum 
(see Trans. N.Z. Inst., III., p. 3) was caught, I believe, at the Thames in 
January, 1853, and as a mission station had been established there some years 
previously this specimen was no doubt brought over from Australia in their 
vessel. 
The animal seen at Dusky Bay by some of Capt. Cook’s sailors (2nd Voyage, 
I., 98) was probably a dog, as none on board had at that time seen a dog 
in New Zealand. 
The evidence of a kind of otter inhabiting the South Island rests upon 
some foot-prints seen by Dr. Haast, and mentioned by him in his first 
presidential address to the Canterbury Philosophical Society (“ Nat. Hist. 
Rey.,” 1864. p. 30). In the same address he also mentions having seen tracks 
in great numbers of a small jumping mammal in the riverbed of the Hopkins, 
but as no further evidence of the existence of these creatures has been adduced, 
although eight or nine years have since elapsed, it is impossible for me to take 
any further notice of them in this paper. 
Birps. 
The first point that claims our attention here is the great development of 
the Struthious birds. This division can be subdivided into two families, one 
` (Apterygide) containing only the kiwis, and the other (Struthionide) including 
all other living forms as well as the extinct moas. The kiwis in the structure 
of the egg-shell have an affinity with the Carinate division of birds. Their 
X 
