oe) 
31 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
never anywhere else. The second argument of the French 
savant seems less satisfactory. He accounts for the absence of 
“onawed” moa-bones in the ovens by a theory that the dogs of 
those days were not carnivorous—that they had been brought 
from the islands of Polynesia—that they were, as in those islands, 
an article of food for their masters,—and that these latter would 
therefore confine them to a vegetable diet for the purpose of 
rendering their flesh more palatable. Whilst admitting the 
possibility of such a proceeding, it must be confessed that there 
is a somewhat doubtful air about it. Nor, indeed, does there 
seem to be much necessity for so elaborate a theory. The 
absence of “gnawed” bones is, at the very best, only weak 
negative evidence—one might say, of no value whatever ;—and, 
as a matter of fact, M. de Quatrefages refers to one case where, 
as reported by Mr. Booth, two moa bones in an oven did 
present the appearance of having been “ gnawed.” 
As regards the cannibalism of the “ Moa-hunters,” Dr. von 
Haast affirms that no human bones have ever been found in 
their ovens, and again from this absence of relics concludes that 
the moa-hunters did not eat men. M.de Quatrefages points 
out in reply, first, that human bones were also declared to have 
never been found in the heaps of shells indubitably left by the 
Maoris, and very rightly observes that this.disposes of the argu- 
ment as to the moa-hunters. But, as a fact, he says that this 
absence of human bones is not correct, and he quotes from 
papers by the Hon. Mr. Mantell, Mr. G. Thorne, Mr. Roberts, and 
Mr. Robson, instances where bones of moas, seals, dogs, fishes, 
and men were found indiscriminately mixed together. Dr. von 
Haast indeed himself refers to Mr. Mantell’s statement, though 
he attaches no importance to it (Trans., Vol. IV., p. 89). It is, 
by the way, somewhat curious that, on the same page, he 
mentions the finding by Mr. Fuller of a “ moa-hunter encamp- 
ment” close alongside “the traces of a cannibal feast,” but says 
that “there was nothing to connect the one with the other.” It 
does not appear, however, that there was anything to disconnect 
the one from the other. On the whole, M. de Quatrefages con- 
cludes that the cannibalism of the men who killed moas may be 
taken as a matter of certainty. 
A very important point in the controversy is that concerning 
the traditions of the Maoris, a point from which a way may be 
found to affirmative instead of negative evidence. Here we are 
brought into contact with two directly contradictory statements, 
for whilst Dr. von Haast declares the absence of such traditions, 
a number of other observers declare precisely the contrary. Of 
these, M. de Quatrefages quotes Mr. Mantell, Sir George Grey, 
Mr. Hamilton, and, particularly, the letters of Mr. John White 
to Mr. Travers, in Vol. VIII. of the Transactions. It would 
indeed seem as if there could not be the slightest possibility of 
doubt onthe matter, so clear, precise, and definite in details are 
the statements of all these gentlemen. Mr. White goes minutely 
into the particulars of the Maori customs on the occasion ot a 
