Comments on: Once In A Blue Moa

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:40:05 +0000

Let’s not rule out the possibility that what she saw may have been highly unusual, even within the natural variation of your average Moa, or even that it may have been the last of a species never documented by science at all.

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:05:58 +0000

Remember too, though, that she claimed to have seen another one again nine years later. Are the word and observational skills of a 16 year old more valid than those of a 7 year old? (I’d say yes and no, depending on the situation) But she emphatically stated it was not one of the rediscovered takahe, based on the red colorations of that species legs.

Also, if no westerner is supposed to have ever seen a living moa, how do we KNOW there weren’t some dark blue individuals of some species or another? Surely the recovered feather evidence isn’t comprehensive.

As for whether or not this bird would let a seven year old child actually touch it, perhaps such a docile nature was a contributing factor to their (supposedly) becoming extinct within a hundred years of human contact? Whatever it was, we obviously aren’t dealing with a flesh-eating “terror bird” here.

By: YourPTR!

YourPTR! — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:23:56 +0000

I’ve read about this incident before and the general consenous was that she saw a takahe and mistakenly thought it was a moa. Which is still pretty cool as they were considered extinct at the time and remain very rare to this day. A takahe is much more likely and resembles what she claimed to have seen much more closely.

By: One Eyed Cat

One Eyed Cat — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:58:07 +0000

I must note, ‘conventional wisdom ‘ has a known habit of being wrong.

By: heinselman

heinselman — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:46:20 +0000

While the history behind the McKenzie book is nice, it does not give a good sense of the event of interest here. After all the article was not really “aimed” at that, as such the brief outline of her event are not very detailed.

I would suggest that interested parties either pick up her book, or get hold of a transcript of one of her letters.

For example, Atholl Anderson put an extract from McKenzie’s May 1948 letter to North Otago historian GB Stevenson in his interesting 1989 article “On Evidence for the Survival of Moa in European Fiordland” (New Zealand Journal of Ecology, volume 12, supplement 1989).

This extract brings out what she saw further, her reaction, and other events at the time. It also touches on the later incident. Not sure if Anderson’s article is online or not, but an extract of the reference letter can be read at :

http://www.strangeark.com/blog/2007/02/alice-mckenzie-and-moa.html

Craig Heinselman
Peterborough, NH

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:28:58 +0000

I am not familiar really familiar with the moa but what strikes me is how tame it was with the little girl. ” This was not a flash of a bird retreating into the scrub. It was a full-on encounter, with Alice describing touching the bird’s curved rump feathers and stretching out one of its dark-green, scaly legs.” Is this consistent with how one of these would have behaved? I would think that if it was this tame around humans, then everybody would have been seeing it on a regular basis. As for scientists accepting the little girl’s testimony, it makes sense to me a bit. A little girl would be more likely to exaggerate or misidentify an animal or just plain make it up. There is every possibility that she DID see a moa, but that just isn’t going to convince most scientists and in a way this is not always a bad thing. We can’t have scientists just believing everything they hear. There has to be, as Ceroill said, some veracity to the claim and in the case of an expert witness, their expertise is their veracity. Perhaps they should have done more than just discounted the sighting out of hand, but witness reliability is persuasive. If a bird expert made this sighting, their testimony would most likely be embraced with open arms. It’s unfortunate sometimes, but the way it usually is. I also often wonder what kind of rare or supposedly extinct animals common people have seen without even realizing it was anything special. It seems not only does someone have to have the luck to see it, but an actual expert has to see it and document it for it to be “real”.

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:07:07 +0000

Ceroill: as you say.

It’s just that I’d appreciate it if scientists stopped accumulating so much dust, and left that brain open just a crack to let in a little light and air occasionally.

If I were a scientist, and I’m not but if I were, knowing what I know now, here would be my comment on anything like this.

“The evidence we have seems to mark this an unlikely occurrence. But unlikelier things have happened. Extinction being, of course, something that can never be proven, the book is never truly closed, whatever pronouncements to the contrary we may make for the sake of scientific convenience. I can’t consider one sighting report anything other than intriguing. But it remains, certainly, that. No one should expect me to be the first to tell her she didn’t see what she saw. After all, I wasn’t there.”

Pretty all-purpose, don’t you think? No insulting the intelligence and the eyesight (both of which may well be better than yours) of people who may have seen just what they saw. Simply the recognition that, old lady, count yourself VERY lucky if you did. Science maintains its precious dignity, and doesn’t go around letting in all kinds of crazy crap. While reminding itself – and all of us – that the total of what we know will probably always lag well behind the total of what we don’t.

Can’t get more scientific than that, I don’t think.

That little crack gets stuff discovered by people who let light in. People named Jeff, for example.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:02:58 +0000

Probably not many, DWA. But remember, to many scientists only a ‘highly trained observer’ can make a credible report of having seen anything. Also, that the only sort of person less believed than a small girl on a rural homestead would have been an indigenous person. The concept that ‘ordinary people’ (especially children and natives) might actually know what they’re talkinig about is alien to them.

Once something has become ‘established fact’ (animal x being extinct for example) it becomes the responsibility of the witness of something contrary to that fact to demonstrate conclusively the veracity of their claim.

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:53:54 +0000

Very curious.

Another one for the list of rediscoveries we need to make

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:02:41 +0000

Having trekked to Martins Bay on the Hollyford Track (Ok, cheated a bit with a jetboat), I can say that it’s remote enough today that back then, who knows?

It is interesting how quickly people will discount stuff that doesn’t square with what they “know” – instead of questioning how much they really know.

I know it’s the province of science to guard as well as expand the body of knowledge. My saying I saw a dodo isn’t gonna make it real, scientifically speaking. But must they be such damn killjoys about it?

I won’t even get started on what I think about people who tell you you didn’t see what you saw when they weren’t there.

Oh. How many scientists were in New Zealand in 1500? Just asking.