ARE BEETLES MAORI RELICS?

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 202, 21 May 1920, Page 7

ARE BEETLES MAORI RELICS?

AUTHORITIES DISALLOW

Export

COLLECTION HELD UP

That beetles are Maori antiquities is a iiew discovery in zoology by the Department of Internal Affairs. An exceedingly valuable collection of beetles made by the late Major Broun, of Auckland, was bequeathed 'by him to tho British Museum, but the authorities, under tho provisions of the Maori Antiquitios Act of 1908, have refused to allow its export. Tho Act dofines "Maori antiquities" as Maori relics, articles manufactured with ancient Maori tools and according to Maori methods, and all other articles -or things of historical or scientific value or interest arid relating to New Zealand, but doos not include any botanical or mineral collections and specimens. A correspondent, Mr. C. Barham Morris, in a letter to the Editor protests strongly against tho Government using this Act to provent a scientific collector from disposing of his collection in whatnror manner ho thinks fit. Inquiry, however, reveals the fact that this step lias been taken as a means to prevent tho immediate.dispatch of the collection from tho Dominion with a,view to building up a duplicnto of it before it is sent to London. Once it loft tho Dominion this would bq impossible. A VIGOROUS PROTEST. Mr. Morris writes:— "Sir,—lf the newspapers are correct in their report concerning the action of the Minister of Internal Affairs in prohibiting the export of the lato Major Broun's collection "of the New Zealand' Cleopatra, the results may bo more . tar-reaching and unexpected than tho Government anticipate. Major Broun was, I believe, the only naturalist out here who specialised in our beetles, and he was our only authority in this order of insects. His collection, therefore, is a Aniqne one. J"n bequeathing it to the British Museum he adopted tho wisest and best course; firstly, because it is the great national repository; and secondly, because each department connected with- the museum is under the.supervision of experts, who aro able to look after the exhibits,and afford assistance to scientific inquirers from all parts of the - world. The local institutions, on the other hand, cannot offer these advantages. The accommodation w defective, for which reason we lost Sir Walter Buller's famous colleotion of birds lately, and obviously tho curator in charge of any of our museuniK cannot be expected to possess the requisite amount of skill and knowledge so necessary in every department rvor which he has control. He usually specialises in one or more, and the rest have to suffer from neglect. It must; be added that New Zealand students have not always access to these collections, information is usually wanting, and they are, of course, quite useless to those who reside abroad. "The reasons given in Mr. J. Hislop's letter to the executors for tho Minister's decision seem equally unsatisfactory, and they will com© as a surpriso to most collector? in this country. They are, briefly, that Maior Broun had received specimens from time to time from _aK most every naturalist in tho Dominion. That tho naming of these specimens was only made possible by the expenditure of . public money in the publication nt the manual of t.ho "N.Z. Coleoptera" and the bulletins of the N.Z. Institute. Lastly, that the Maori Antinuities Act of 1808 provides that no collection of scientific -value or interost relating to New Zealand may be exported without the authority of the Minister. The first two reasons are flimsy in the extreme and calculated—if'put into practice—to injure scientific research in this country. ' EVery naturalist of repute' receives specimens for identification, etc., but it surely cannot reasonably bo argued that lio alienates his right to dispose of his-collection on that account! It is grossly incorrcct to assert that it was impossible to name the insocts except by publication in the manual or l ho transactions of the institute, for there are many societies, both British and foreign, who would gladly do this. Tho writer knows several who. have aske<l New Zealand- naturalists to do so, and in view of this latest development, the request is likely .to bo complied with more in the future than it has in tho past. Thero has never been any intimation to mv knowledge that the publication of a report on new species in tho transactions of the institute would constitute a claim on the type' specimens for the Government, and if this should be the case, notico to that effect fihould be given, when a considerable diminution in the number of reports may bo looked for. "The popular idea regarding tho Maori Antiquities Act is that it refers' to greenstone, axes, tikis, and articles of tliat kind, and not to beetles. If.-how-ever, zoological and botanical specimens were intended to como within its scope a different title should have been chosen by the Legislature. Investigation should convince the Government that they had been ill-advised in the matter, and it ia hoped that the Board of Governors of the New Zealand Institute will take steps f o bring it to the noticp of Caljinet.-, I am, etc,, "C. BARHAM MORRIS. " 'Kefeo,' Riwaka, May 12, 1920." WHY THE STEP WAS TAKEN. A Dominion representative ascertained on inquiry that the disposal of this collection was brought under the notice of the Internal Affairs Department in October last, when communications were received from many people interested in New Zealand entomology. Dr. Allan Thomson (Director of tho Dominion Museum) Mr. G. V. Hudson (Wellington), Mr. J. Malcolm (secretary of tho Otago Institute), Professor Benham (Otago University), and- Dr. Speight (curator of tho Canterbury Museum) were among those who urged that the dispatch of the Broun collection to London would be a sore blow to entomologists. Some of the letters sent to tho Department pointed out that if the collection left the Dominion, the naming and classification of the New Zealand beetles would he. thrown into confusion, since the lato' Major Broun had named many unique specimens. Tho published descriptions were inadequate, and comparison with tho Broun collection was oiten the solo means of ascertaining if a specimen was new or had already been named. The ' Undersecretary _ for Internal Affairs wrote to the solicitors who. wero handling tho. late Major Broun's estato in October last, and stated that the export of the collection would ,iot to permitted, to its high scientific value to New Zealand. Tho official letter referred to tho fact that entomologists from all over N?w Zealand had sent specimens, which had! been added to tho collection, and to tho expenditure of public money on the publication of bullotins dealing with the collection. "In the interests of those interested in entomology," added tho letter, "it is desirnble'that tho collection should be placed in the Dominion Museum for reference purposes, and I shall be glad to learn whether arrangements may not be made to this effect-." A reply received from tho solicitors some five months later expressed surprise at the decision of the Department. The late Major Broun, stated the letter, had in many cases returned tho specimens sent to him for identification. Tho money spent by tho Government on tho publication of the bullotins prepared by Major Broun had brought "a good return from sales of the books referred to." The sole payment received by tho deceased had been some free copies of the bulletins. "We aro instructed to adviso you," added the solicitors, _ "that tho collection will not be deposited in tho Dominion Museum." TEMPORARY RETENTION ONLY. Speaking to a Dominion reporter, Dr. Allan Thomson, Director of the Dominion Museum, said that he regarded the rotention of the colleotion in New' Zealand as important. The prohibition of export did not affect ownership, and apparently tho collection became tho property of the British Museum even if it wero Tctainod in Now Zealand. Tho New Zealand Institute had written to the Director of the British Museum explaining tho position, and ho hoped that a satisfactory arrangement would bo wado. Dr. Thomson added .that <mii&v

sumption that a Now Zealand Museum could not look after the collection was not justified. The Dominion Museum had a capable entomologist on its 6taff, the only one so employed in New Zealand. and tho collection certainly would not suffer from lack of attention. He agreed that it could not be housed in tho existing wooden building. Dry and fireproof accommodation would have to bo provided, but that would not 1)0 impossible pending the erection of a proper Dominion Museum. If the collection once left tho country its loss would be final. Ho had not contended, said Dr. Thomson, that the naming of the collection would have been impossible without public expenditure, but as a matter of fact the public expenditure had beon made. In the letter sent by the secretary of tho New Zealand Institute to the Director of tho British Museum it is stated: '•'Tho Standing Committee of the New Zealand Institute believes that tho interest of science would bo best served if vou would consent to deposit the collection in New Zealand for a period, preferably in the Dominion Museum, in order to trive New Zealand entomologists an opportunity to refer to it and determino authentic specimen!? of his named species. I understand that tho Dominion Museum authorities are prepared to devoto practically the whole time of an experienced entomologist to the care of the collection and to work on tfie coleoptra, with a view to building up ns complete a reference collection as possible. "The New Zealand Government has power under the Maori Antiquities Act in forbid .the export of collections from New Zealand, and hns, I understand, exorcised that powor temporarily until some arrangement with your miiamim can be made, but I am assured that there is np intention of prohibiting its ultimate export. I hopo, therefore, that vou will see your way to fall in with .the arrangomont proposed."