WEKA PASS ROCK-PAINTINGS. se 
Ezekiel knew anything about Sumatra, whether there is a 
“chain” from Sumatra to New Zealand any more than to Tahiti, 
and such like questions, should all be discussed before touching 
this statement; but the moment Ezekiel is dragged in, there is 
an end to all reasonable discussion. However, the main fault of 
Mr. Cameron’s paper lies, not in his scriptural and_ historical 
eccentricities, but in the following sentences :—“ We have clear 
philological testimony that the serfent-race of India in early times 
obtained a foothold in New Zealand. This will be further 
brought out below.” The words are emphatic—“ clear philolo- 
gical testimony.” And how does Mr. Cameron bring out his - 
evidence? By etymologically considering the Maori names— 
Te Kahui Tipua and Nga-puhi, the two mythical races alluded to 
apewe.4% be,’.he, says, isthe definite. particle “the;’. “ Kahui 
Tipua,” the deceitful, wicked dog-race; “nga,” from the Sanskrit 
Pasea.. serpent ;. and “puht,” from,“ pub,” race... It) appears 
further that the dog-race‘is Burmese, and the serpent-race Indian, 
and no explanation is vouchsafed as to the manner in which 
these two serpent-races joined together to colonise New Zealand. 
But, anyhow, a person professing to use philological arguments 
ought at least to know his parts of speech. Allowing that “te” 
equals “the,” it is obvious that if “ Kahui Tipua” means “ deceit- 
ful dog-race,” the first thing to be clear about would be, which 
word meant “deceitful,” and which word “dog-race.” Yet Mr. 
Cameron quietly remarks that he “should wish to know which is 
the adjective!” What, I wonder, would be the fate of the un- 
happy schoolboy who should venture to construe “ bonus puer ”— 
“puer,” the good ; “bonus,” boy? In Scott’s inimitable “ Anti- 
quary,” Mr. Oldbuck is represented as establishing an ancient 
Roman encampment at the Kaim of Kinprunes, on the authority 
of Claudian’s line—“ [le Caledoniis posuit qui castra pruints.” 
But not even in the exuberance of his humour did Scott venture 
to depict his philological antiquary as founding his claim upon 
accidental similarity, careless of thesimplestrudimentsof grammar. 
It has been reserved for Sydney to produce, and for New Zealand 
to enshrine in print a philologist who is not ashamed to confess 
high ignorance of the accidence of the language which he selects 
for his experiments. What possible value can anybody be dis- 
posed to place on a theory based upon so flimsy a foundation ? 
Mr. Cameron concludes his paper with the peculiar remark, “ If 
furnished with the necessary philological and ethnological 
materials | might be able to indicate the early history of your 
island.” Probably any person, if furnished with “the necessary 
material,’ might be enabled to do such a thing; yet, I doubt 
whether Mr. Cameron, unless condescending to the study of the, 
rudiments of grammar, could satisfactorily accomplish the task. 
I have written strongly upon this matter, and it may perhaps 
be thought that in so doing I have stepped beyond legitimate 
controversy, more especially with regard to an author unknown 
to myself, and indeed a stranger to this country generally. But 
there are times when some plain speaking is desirable, A gen- 
