56 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 
tleman who is commonly reputed to be a high authority upon 
native questions in the south of New Zealand, has called Mr. 
Cameron’s production “extremely interesting.” A Fellow of the 
Royal Society terms it “important,” and “opening anew field ;” 
it was read at a meeting of a Philosophical Institute ; it has been 
published in the annual volume of the New Zealand “ Transac- 
tions ;” and it has remained for two years in that volume 
unanswered, uncontroverted, and a specimen ‘to all the world of 
the philological work done in the Southern Seas. Is it therefore 
too much to say that its appearance, coupled with the praises 
lavished on it, is the reverse of creditable to the New Zealand 
Institute and to the cause of science in this Colony? 
Passing to the theory of Dr. von Haast, I think that there is 
a great difference noticeable. Mr. Cameron, trying to float in the 
clouds without sufficient machinery, falls into an abyss of absur- 
dity. Dr. von Haast, whether his theory be right or wrong, at 
least has endeavoured to examine the ground pretty closely, and 
to support himself by actual observation. Still Iam obliged to 
say that there does seem to be in his paper (Trans. Vol. X., p. 
44, etc.) evidence of his having unwittingly begun his reasoning 
trom, as it were, the wrong end. It seems as if, having made up 
_ his mind (from previous studies) on the antiquity of the native 
races, he has endeavoured to make the paintings fit in with his 
preconception, rather than to use them as premises to lead 
him to aconclusion. Satisfied, as I believe he is, that a very 
ancient race existed in these islands before the Maori, and exter- 
minated, ages ago, the moa, he appears to have accepted 
at the first blush the rock paintings as additional evidence on the 
same side, and to have commenced by asking himself the ques- 
tion—“ How can I make these fit in with my other conclusions ?” 
A curious proof of this is, I think, afforded by a sentence or two 
of his paper. He says, p. 45, that “The paint consists of 
Kokowai (red oxide of iron), of which the present aborigines of 
New Zealand make still extensive use, and of some fatty sub- 
stance ;” and on page 51-53, describing the contents (all com- 
prised in a depth of 1ft. 2in.) of the earthen floor under the 
shelter, he gives no instance of any implements being found 
differing from those used by the Maoris. The presence of 
fragments of moa bones he does, indeed, take as a proof that the 
paintings were anterior to Maori occupation; but this is evidently 
only a part, or a consequence, of his preconceived theory men- 
tioned just now. In fact, ignoring altogether the Maori paint 
and Maori implements, he assumes the existence on the spot of 
an anterior race, who left no traces whatever of their habitation 
there. This strikes me as being much the same as if a man, find- 
ing a basket of carpenter’s tools, should at once conclude in his 
mind that they must have belonged to a shoemaker; or, as if 
Roman utensils found under the Roman Wall in England should 
be taken as proof that the wall was built by the Caledonians. 
Postponing for awhile an examination of Dr. von Haast’s 
explanation of particular figures, I must refer to what is really 
