194 Darwin and Romanes dealt with. 



suckino;, is a little hard to justify from certain points 

 of view of theory ; but certain good folks must find 

 ways to explain it by " may he's." Thus Dr. H. 

 Woodward, quoted by Prof. St. George Mivart, sug- 

 gests that these keas in former days may have fed 

 upon a species of dinomis, perching on their backs as 

 they do now on the backs of the sheep "■'■ — a sugges- 

 tion for which, so far as we are aware, there is not 

 the least ground in any known fact whatever. Dr. H. 

 Woodward only boldly imagines it. So far as we 

 know there is not, as said above, a single fact in 

 favour of this presumption. We have facts that 

 justify us in tracing a certain process in the transfer- 

 ence of frugivorous parrots into sheep destroyers. 



1. The Darwinians say that the keas found offal 

 and entrails of sheep thrown about and skins hung 

 out, and pecking these over hit on what they came 

 to regard as tit-bits. This is not the case, and is 

 denied by Mr. Taylor White, Mr. Huddlestone, and 

 others. 



2. The keas do not eat flesh of sheep at all, and 

 certainly not dead flesh, but suck the blood of the 

 living sheep, leaving torn carcases behind them. 



3. The next step clearly was by conference to 

 decide what was the most effective means of securing 

 these tit-bits from the living sheep, and the agreement 

 was that united effort by bands was the most likely 

 process, which the said practical experience of New 

 Zealand farmers shows it was. 



4. Has Dr. Woodward anything to favour the idea 

 that the dinomis was specially fed up, and fattened ? 



* St. George Mivart's Birds: Elements of Ornithology. Keas 

 ad loco. 



