60 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
easy to say ; and this figure is one of those whose outline on the 
rock is so indistinct that it may be called anything; but the 
“ protruding tongue ” is perhaps a stretch of fancy leading to the 
neglect of the obvious suggestion (if animal it is) that it might 
mean simply aneel. No. g is said to be either a moa or a 
cassowary ; might it not with equal likelihood, if a bird at all, 
be a seagull ora weka? This figure is also very indistinct at 
the present day. No. 11 is called “a taniwha,’ whilst No. 8 is 
only “a dog.” If both represent quadrupeds, why not reverse 
the interpretation? No. 10 is “evidently a weapon, and might, 
being close to the bird, indicate the manner in which the latter 
was killed during the chase ;” an interpretation strained with a 
vengeance! No. 17, in the plate, is incomplete, at least as com- 
pared with Mr. Cousins’ original drawing (in the Canterbury 
Museum), where a stream of smoke is made to issue from the 
cup-shaped top. Has there not been here also a little stretching 
of fancy, considering that the “smoke” may be due only to the 
scaling of the rock-surface? No. 14 is, without doubt, one of the 
most extraordinary and puzzling of all the paintings; Dr. von 
Haast calls it (as indeed it looks) a hat; Mr. Cameron says that 
'it means a Buddhist temple. Without stopping to decide this, 
or to examine the succeeding figures, which may or may not 
represent what Dr. von Haast considers them to mean, I pass on 
to No. 27, which is said to depict a “huge snake-like animal, . 
probably a Tuna tuoro,” a mythical monstereel. [imagine 
that the reason for this is the extraordinary length of the animal, 
and the fact that an obscure little figure, supposed to be a man 
running away, is placed before it. This “man,” it may be said, 
is extremely indistinct at present, and in any case might with 
equal probability be considered as running away from No. 25, 
But the question arises—why is No. 27 a “huge” animal, a 
“monster?” There can be but one reason, the size of the paint- 
ing; but in that case there would seem to be some defect in 
logic. The size of a drawing has nothing to do with the size of its 
object. The Jupiter of Phidias was many feet high, the Colossus 
of Rhodes was much higher ;. was the latter an indication that 
Apollo was greater than Jove? And if size goes for anything, 
why should not No. 29, the “man” be as probably a “dwarf” as 
No. 27-is a “monster?” Or, again, take No. 9, the supposed 
“moa ;” this is not so large as the “man,” No. 29, but it would 
scarcely be conceded that moas stood no higher than the 
average of men. I would not lay stress upon this point were it 
not that Dr. von Haast uses the size of this figure, No. 27, asa 
peg whereon to hang a deduction that the authors of these 
paintings were Indian, and desired to represent to their native 
masters “ huge snakes or crocodiles.” In pursuance of this idea, 
he further says that “ Nos. 23 and 25 might be crocodiles, No. 27 
a boa constrictor.” It is worth while, too, to remark that this 
No. 27 is.five times as long as No. 1, supposed to represent a 
sperm whale ! 
I need not now refer to a number of small complicated , 
