Nature

Partly Sunny with Showers 12° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Maori legend of man-eating bird is true

Creature that features in New Zealand folklore really existed, scientists say

By Paul Rodgers

The skull of a Haast's eagle, said to be 'designed as a killing machine'

The skull of a Haast's eagle, said to be 'designed as a killing machine'

A Maori legend about a giant, man-eating bird has been confirmed by scientists. Te Hokioi was a huge black-and-white predator with a red crest and yellow-green tinged wingtips, in an account given to Sir George Gray, an early governor of New Zealand. It was said to be named after its cry and to have "raced the hawk to the heavens". Scientists now think the stories handed down by word of mouth and depicted in rock drawings refer to Haast's eagle, a raptor that became extinct just 500 years ago, shows their study in The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Haast's eagle (Harpagornis moorei) was discovered in swamp deposits by Sir Julius von Haast in the 1870s. But it was at first thought to be a scavenger because its bill was similar to a vulture's with hoods over its nostrils to stop flesh blocking its air passages as it rooted around inside carcasses.

But a re-examination of skeletons using modern technology, including CAT scans, by researchers at Canterbury Museum in Christchurch and the University of New South Wales in Australia showed it had a strong enough pelvis to support a killing blow as it dived at speeds of up to 80kph.

With a wingspan of up to three metres and weighing 18kg, the female was twice as big as the largest living eagle, the Steller's sea eagle. And the bird's talons were as big as a tiger's claws. "It was certainly capable of swooping down and taking a child," said Paul Scofield, the curator of vertebrate zoology at the Canterbury Museum. "They had the ability to not only strike with their talons but to close the talons and put them through quite solid objects such as a pelvis. It was designed as a killing machine."

Its main prey would have been moa, flightless birds which grew to as much as 250kg and 2.5 metres tall. "In some fossil sites, moa bones have been found with signs of eagle predation," Dr Scofield said.

New Zealand has no native land mammals because it became isolated from other continents in the Cretaceous, more than 65 million years ago. As a result, birds filled niches usually populated by large mammals such as deer and cattle. "Haast's eagle wasn't just the equivalent of a giant predatory bird," said Dr Scofield. "It was the equivalent of a lion." The eagle is thought to have died out after the arrival, 1,000 years ago, of humans, who exterminated the giant moa. The latest study shows it was a recent immigrant to the islands, related to the little eagle (Aquila morphnoides) an Australian bird weighing less than 1kg.

Remains of Haast's eagles are rare because there never were many. They lived only on New Zealand's South Island, with probably not more than 1,000 breeding pairs at any one time.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

New Zealand
[info]moralclimate wrote:
Sunday, 13 September 2009 at 11:41 pm (UTC)
New Zealand is an archipelago, not a continent.
Re: New Zealand
[info]nightside242 wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 08:26 am (UTC)
The article doesn't say it was a continent, just that it was seperated from continents.
Re: New Zealand
[info]jumblebunny wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 02:58 pm (UTC)
new zealand (as well as new caledonia) actually is part of the mostly-submerged continent of zeelandia.
Re: New Zealand
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
the great thing a bout the learned commenters on the Indie is that they are constantly educating me
Re: New Zealand
[info]safari77 wrote:
Friday, 25 September 2009 at 08:59 pm (UTC)
actually, moralclimate's point is well-noted... the article states: "it became isolated from other continents"... the use of the word "other" erroneously implies that NZ was also a continent
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 12:03 am (UTC)
"It was designed as a killing machine" - no, it wasn't, it evolved as a predator. You would think a museum curator could avoid speaking in journalese.
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
I fail to see how the phrases are truly any different when you think about it. They both imply a specification that fulfills a purpose, i.e "made for killing".
[info]amwg wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
I think the point is that saying it was "designed" implies that there was a designer, rather than it having evolved by random DNA mutation and non-random selection pressures.
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 10:52 am (UTC)
So why is that a problem? What if that were the implication of the available evidence?
[info]amwg wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
Then there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't. I don't have a difficulty with the use of "designed" because it's just the use of everyday language in a popular media website, but can see how it's use can be misleading.
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 11:48 am (UTC)
On what basis are you saying it isn't an implication?

It may not be a stark or obvious implication of the evidence but then by the same logic, neither would evolution by random DNA mutation and non-random selection pressures be an implication.
[info]amwg wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
I get the impression you don't actually need me to spell this out for you, but justagreenie was merely suggesting that, in the absence of any evidence or implication to the contrary contained herewith, this article could be phrased in better accordance with the current overwhelming scientific consensus of differentiation of species by natural selection rather than conscious design.
[info]biggsydr9 wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC)
You lack imagination.

Animals select mates based on criteria - those selections of favorable traits would constitute a design. The natural selection part is the bad designs (poor choices of successive generations of parents) offspring losing out.

To give a contrived example - If I keep giving you random colors of paint, 3 at a time and you can pick or pass - you can come up with whatever color you want eventually, whether or not it's a 'good color' is another story.
[info]amwg wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 03:10 pm (UTC)
I assure you I understand how natural selection works - I was merely trying to clarify a point that an earlier poster had made regarding the use of everyday language in reporting scientific issues. We use "design" frequently in every day use, but the term implies that the outcome is the result of conscious forces, which natural selection isn't - you wouldn't say that the coastline is designed by the sea. As I said above, I don't have a great problem with it because, although it is a little misleading, this article is in an everyday paper for non-scientists. The author could have referred to the animal's phenotype instead, but would have lost half his audience.

The point of scientific nomenclature is that it should preclude the requirement of imagination in interpretation!
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 02:28 pm (UTC)
Appealing to the majority or authority is a logical fallacy however and isn't indicative of truth. Point is, the evidence can swing either way.
[info]amwg wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 03:57 pm (UTC)
The fallacy would be to accord equal weighting to both theories, when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of one.

Of course going with the commonly-accepted theory isn't always indicative of truth, but we go with what the evidence favours until we have a better hypothesis - this is called progress. If you want to read articles that give equal weighting to flat and round earth theories, or oxygen and phlogiston, then fine; however, I imagine most readers will want to read something that is as useful and informative as it can be.
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
There is nothing logically fallacious about allowing both sides of a debate to actually debate honestly. That wouldn't be a logical fallacy, which is what I was talking about. You opinion of which theory the evidence favours is subjective and therefore ultimately irrelevant to truth.

To equate alternatives of evolution to flat earth theories is also a fallacious false association based on a strawman. If any progress is to actually be made, people need to get past this and actually learn something about what they are critiquing.
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
is it not wonderful that accurate descriptions of this animal were conveyed by oral tradition over 5 ,000 years
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 10:19 am (UTC)
gosh just had a thought, any chance that Zeelandia is/was where Atlantis was?- might be worth a look
[info]safari77 wrote:
Friday, 25 September 2009 at 09:12 pm (UTC)
100% behind you amwg, "truth" in science has to be a guiding principle, no matter the audience
Humans aer Killing 'Machines'
[info]lestori wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 02:09 am (UTC)
Whilst Humans are Killing 'machines' , this bird was a Predator. It did not kill for fun or Power but to eat and survive.
Re: Humans aer Killing 'Machines'
[info]panthiest wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC)
Humans kill to eat and survive also. humans killing for "fun" implies that some human cultures do kill for reasons other than eating and survival which would be difficult to prove I think as even non-essential killing might offer some advantage and so be a worthy survival strategy (though I don't personally advocate it). the killing machine is an abbreviated way of saying this bird is perfectly evolved for killing. calling any animal or human a machine is anthropomorphising or would that be technomorphising perhaps?
Sympathy
[info]forlornehope wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
While the extinction of any species is unfortunate, one has to sympathise with the Maoris who were not too keen on sharing their home with these birds!
Re: Sympathy
[info]razmatallion wrote:
Monday, 12 October 2009 at 08:11 am (UTC)
Except the Maori wiped them out indirectly by hunting the Moa to extinction. Doesn't make it right by any means. Their methods of hunting were wasteful and destructive.. Can we justify wiping out the Tiger just because it's capable of preying on us?
children
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
And, while I'm at it - sensationalist headline, yet again the Independent disappoints me in its science reporting. No evidence whatsoever that the eagle took humans, and it would be extraordinary if it had done. No evidence really for what it did take except for the "moa bones have been found with signs of eagle predation" and I don't know how certain even this small amount of evidence is. The Maori legend certainly hasn't been confirmed, other than that there was a big eagle in the past, a relative of one that takes rabbit-sized prey in Australia. Why can't this sort of stuff just be reported straight, without spin from investigator (trying to attract media attention) or reporter?
Re: children
[info]chris_c_d wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)


Here here!
Re: children
[info]amwg wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
Because sadly a newspaper's job is to sell newspapers, which seems to be best achieved with wild sensationalism, rather than actually report facts.
Re: children
[info]xyz07 wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC)
Well that is how capitalism works isn't it? On top of which, there are a few wankers in charge of deciding with the public wants and what not. No wonder we are in limbo regarding the real issues.
Re: children
[info]prof_use wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 06:11 pm (UTC)
Yes it is a bit disappointing sometimes but there are enough comments here to provide some guidance or objective criticism. The story is actually not that new either.

There are caves full of super large eggs which were used by early humans as containers. The very large birds became extinct. Man's had a habit of causing extinctions . . . .
just goes to show...
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)
... that traditional oral records can be accurate accounts; what price Gilgamesh?
Haast eagle and the mega fauna
[info]t_sauceda wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 07:28 pm (UTC)
Very interesting, I had heard about the Haast eagle through a t.v nature program on New Zealand a couple years back. Their comment was that the eagle hunted moas, but after the moa went extinct it started to attack humans.Seemed reasonable since their primary food source was gone they would need to replace it, or perish. Also humans from the air resembled moas especially in their bipedal mode of movement and are an easy target. Also humans can't run that fast. Also geologic time seems to be consistent here in that when the Maori settled New Zealand, the moa was already threatened with extinction.( Some suggest that the Maori were the reason, they hunted moas to extinction.
Incidently I saw another nature program about the terror bird which was present in South America and gradually migrated to North America when the isthmus of Panama served as a land bridge for animal species. The terror bird, like the moa was a groand dwelling bird, but it was a fierce carnivore which had a hooked, nail like upper beak which had the strength to go through bone and muscle.
“It was designed as a killing machine.”
[info]axelmuller wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 08:40 pm (UTC)
No it wasn't. It evolved. I really wish science journalist would be a bit more careful with their choice of words
Re: “It was designed as a killing machine.”
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 08:29 am (UTC)
"No it wasn't. It evolved."

Were you there?
Re: ?It was designed as a killing machine.?
[info]axelmuller wrote:
Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 03:12 pm (UTC)
No, I wasn't there. I rely on overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
Re: ?It was designed as a killing machine.?
[info]safari77 wrote:
Friday, 25 September 2009 at 09:31 pm (UTC)
LOL! The whole phrase from "it was designed" to "killing machine" is as fallacious as stating that "Columbus discovered America" or even more insidious that "America became a country after the War of Independence"... if we do not hold our media accountable for journalistic impropriety then we may as well look for subsequent Independent "Nature" newspaper articles in DDC 813 rather than 507/508 in the local library...
And you believe all the stories of UFOs and the tourism attraction in the above manner?
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 14 September 2009 at 09:40 pm (UTC)
Paul Rodgers Australia and New Zealand. What is the problem? Both make butter and milk. One is small one is big.
Why all the fight about the island, Archipelago and the rest.
A soldier ran up to a nun. Out of breath he asked,'Please, may I hide under your skirt. I'll explain later.' The nun agreed. A moment later two Military Police ran up
and asked, Sister, have you seen a soldier?'
The nun replied, 'He went that way.'
After the MPs ran off, the soldier crawled out from under her skirt and said, 'I can't thank you enough Sister. You see, I don't want to go to Iraq ..'
The nun said, 'I understand completely.'
The soldier added, 'I hope I'm not rude, but you have a great pair of legs!' The nun replied, 'If you had looked a little higher, you would have seen the finest wedding tackle...I don't
want to go to Iraq either.'
And you believe all the stories of UFOs and the tourism attraction in the above manner?
I THANK YOU
FIROZALI A MULLA
[info]pappaknotts wrote:
Monday, 21 September 2009 at 05:35 am (UTC)
Fascinating article... I can see it now... Peter Jackson's Weta Studios in Wellington, NZ should be making a film about the Te Hokioi Eagle and film it in the South Island. I can allready see the trailer... a column of brave Maori hunters making their way through the dense rainforests near the Milford Trek on a Greenstone exodus... when there is a shadow that flies overhead. Then they are attacked by this incredible hunting party of eagles...

GO PETER GO!!!

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date