crime, had given to the world, as a substantiated fact, a statement that had not been satisfactorily proved.
If there is anything that ought to be most conclusively proved it is a statement of alleged scientific fact, and as long as investigators continue to publish, as true, half-proved theories, only error and confusion can be the result.
As might be expected from such unsatisfactory evidence, later investigation does not always uphold the conclusions so hastily reached by early writers.
It is rather surprising to find that no one questioned the weight of the evidence until 1905, when Dr. L. Cockayne, the retiring President of the Canterbury Philosophical Institute, while reading a paper “On some little known Country in the Waimakariri District,” made the following statement:—
“I have never seen it [the Kea] attack sheep, nor have I ever met with anyone, shepherd, musterer, or mountain traveller, who has done so; the most that my enquiries have elicited is that sheep are found from time to time with holes in their backs, and that Keas have been seen hovering round sheep.”
A very warm discussion followed this rather unexpected statement, for people had begun to believe that there could be no doubt about the matter of the Kea killing sheep; but, when they found on enquiry that practically no authentic evidence could be found among the records, they naturally became very sceptical.
Dr. Cockayne and his supporters did not, as many people state, say that the Kea was innocent, but that at that time the recorded evidence was quite insufficient to prove the bird’s guilt.
Let us run through the most conclusive recorded evidence, and see on what flimsy and unscientific reasons the bird’s guilt had been declared proved.
About the year 1871, Mr. T. H. Potts condemned the Kea, but on what appears to be hearsay evidence only. He writes as follows: “Through the kind offices of Mr. Robt. Wilkin, the writer has been greatly assisted with valuable notes, acquired by sheep-farmers, owners of stations, shepherds,
