Page:The Kea, a New Zealand problem (1909).pdf/80

76 Though this record casts very grave suspicion on the Kea, it does not by any means prove that the Kea was the culprit.

In the first instance, the bird is stated to have been seen merely picking at a sore on a sheep’s back, just as to-day starlings are commonly seen at the same task; and to say that this proves that the sheep was being killed by the Keas is putting more weight on the evidence than it will bear.

In the second instance it is stated that the shepherds saw several Keas “surrounding” (notice, not “attacking” nor “pecking”) a wounded sheep, and, with the uncertainty which existed at that time as to the true culprit, it might easily have turned out that some other animal had wounded the sheep and the Keas had only been attracted by its struggles.

This latter account, and not Mr. McDonald’s, was unfortunately the one that was published in standard books on our avifauna; and it has been partly responsible for many years of arguing and disagreement between the sheep-owners and scientific men.

However, though nearly fifty years have passed since the record was first published, there has not been one thorough-going attempt to enquire into the case; and, up to the end of 1905, this is the only definite case recorded where a man actually saw a Kea picking at a live sheep. Of course many articles have been written, both in magazines and scientific works, but I cannot find one writer who says that he ever saw a Kea attack a sheep, nor is the name of any man given who said that he had seen the bird at work.

It has been since proved that there were, and are at the present time, many men who have been eye-witnesses of the birds’ depredations, but from the records available in 1905 not one could be found. It seems a great pity that writers should publish on such meagre evidence, as though it were an indisputably proved fact, the statement that the Kea has become not only carnivorous, but also a bird of prey.

I think I am justified in saying that all the literature published, up to 1905, stating that the Kea was guilty of the