ascertain) been found in such numbers as to attract the birds; and, though I have often torn the plants to pieces, I have never found any large insect larvae.
Thirdly, if the Kea feeds on the grubs that are said to live in these plants, one would expect to find the shrubs partly torn up; but I can find no evidence in favour of this. Though I have been upon the ranges where both Keas and vegetable sheep were numerous, I have always found the plants intact.
Lastly, when the Kea first attacked sheep, according to the first accounts, the shoulder or the rump, the latter in preference, was the part chosen. Now, if the bird were in the first instance looking for grubs, he would almost be certain to have worked right along the back: but the evidence disproves this.
It therefore seems to me that, unless some very strong new evidence is forthcoming in support of this theory, we have no alternative but to leave it in future out of consideration.
THE CURIOSITY THEORY.
The supporters of this theory say that it has been nothing but the Kea’s insatiable curiosity and love of investigation that has got it into the habit of sheep-killing.
As has been shown in a previous chapter, it is never happier than when it is pulling something to pieces, and anything with a strange appearance is always a temptation too strong for the Kea to resist. Now, the suggestion embodied in the theory is this—that, when sheep first wandered into the Kea’s domain, as the bird had very likely never before in its life seen anything that walked on four legs, this woolly animal at once aroused its curiosity. With the Kea, to wish to investigate is to do it, and the sheep became a centre of attraction.
The bird would no doubt walk round these strange animals and inspect them from all sides, and when satisfied with the view from the ground it would fly on to the sheep’s back.
This would naturally cause the sheep to move, and the
