444 Andrew Pawley

meaning to the rules of grammar. To grant certain well-formed strings lexeme status just because they are frequently used is, I believe, objectionable to grammarians on several grounds:(i) Economy. Some strings now must be specified twice, once generated by the grammar, once listed in the lexicon.(ii) Vagueness. How frequently must a well-formed string be used to qualify it for lexeme status?(iii) Structural boundaries. Grammar and lexicon have complementary functions, one being generative, the other being a list of primitive elements. This step breaks down the clear division of labour between them, because many formulas are productive.(iv) Loss of autonomy. The generative component of language should be independent of any particular culture. Formulas belong to the domain of language use, not to language structure.Objections (i-iii) simply reflect one possible view of the nature and boundary of the lexicon. There is no good evidence that language users organise their linguistic knowledge in terms of the kinds of economies and structural boundaries beloved of grammarians. However, in many respects productive formulas do have a different character from typical lexemes, and so I prefer not to call them lexemes but formulas, and to speak of the formulaic component of a language-culture system. Objection (iv) is a terminological quibble. It reflects an arbitrary preference to define language structure narrowly, so as to exclude conventions that reflect the common usages and worldview of language users.

REFERENCES

GRACE, George, 1981. An Essay on Language. Columbia, S.C., Hornbeam Press.-----------, 1987. The Linguistic Construction of Reality. London, Croom Helm.LANE, Jonathan, 1991. Kalam Serial Verb Constructions in Kalam. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology,

University of Auckland.MAJNEP, Ian Saem, and Ralph BULMER, in preparation. Animals the Ancestors Hunted: An Account of the Wild

Mammals of the Kalam Area, Papua New Guinea. Based on English Text of Kalam Hunting Traditions. Working Papers I-XII. University of Auckland, Department of Anthropology Working Papers.

PAWLEY, Andrew, 1987. Encoding Events in Kalam and English: Different Logics for Reporting Experience, in Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 329-60.

-----------, 1991. How to Talk Cricket: on Linguistic Competence in a Subject Matter, in Robert Blust (ed.) Currentsin Pacific Linguistics: Essays on Austronesian Languages and Ethnolinguistics in Honour of George W. Grace. Canberra, Pacific Linguisics, C-117. pp. 339-68.

AUSTRONESIAN CLASSIFICATION AND THE CHOICE OF ENDEAVOUR

Wendy Pond Stout Research Centre, Wellington

E te iwi o te Tai Tokerau whānui, tēnā koutou katoa. E tuku atu nei i aku mihi kia koutou i āwhina mai i ngā mahi whakaatu i ngā ingoa Māori mo āhua ngārara katoa o tenei rohe.

Me mihi kau ake ahau i tenei wā ki ēnei kaumātua kua whetūrangitia na rātou tonu i timata ngā mahi nō tēnei kaupapa whakaatu i ingoa Maori o ngā ngārara mō te rohe o te Tai Tokerau: kia Tauwhitu Papa, kia Rapata Tucker, rāua ko tona hoa wahine kia Riripeti, kia Vivian Gregory, kia Tureiti Whetoi Pomare, kia Ned Nathan, kia Frederick Augustus Conrad, kia Tuhi Maihi, kia Rewi Pereri Wiki, kia Te Rongomau Kaka nō tona hoa wahine kia Te Kiu, kia Ngarongoa (Nga Ihaia) Rewiti, me Hemowai Brown. E kui mā, e kara mā, kei te mau mahara tonu kia koutou: moe mai katoa i roto i te ariki.

I have been working in Northland, New Zealand, recording the Māori names of insects and terrestrial arthropods. My collection of specimens was prepared by the Auckland branch of the Entomological Society. The elders remarked on the craftsmanship and manual dexterity evident in the mounting of the specimens, and they expressed appreciation of the contribution by members of the Society to giving Māori names scientific definition. The final referees of the work are the tribal councils of Northland.

* * *

AN Classification and the Choice of Endeavour 445

In the culture inherited by some elders of the Tai Tokerau tribes of Northland, an inescapable omen of death is presented by a green gecko, kākawariki, kākāriki, Naultinus elegans (Gray), crossing their path or laughing at them: the gecko has appeared to that person because the death of a relative is already foretold. Some people will immediately cut the gecko in pieces, with a karakia. Others have been taught to let every creature go its way and to forebear. I am wrestling with the problem that some people of Tai Tokerau have expressed a wish that I should not record the omens and tapu and spiritual significance of native creatures. Some feel such knowledge should not be written down to be transmitted without guidance; some feel it will be denigrated as heathen; some feel it should not be known outside their own family. Others give this information freely and ponder on the philosophical wisdom of their ancestors with loving respect. The collision of cultures instigates debate. The tribal councils will decide what records of spiritual practice should be published. What response will New Zealand scientists make to these records?

Both cultures can appreciate that prohibitions on human action are inserted at certain points in the chain of being to prevent harm being done in the natural and social worlds. The omen of death that the sighting of a green gecko implies, asserts the existence of spiritual power. If the omens and tapu are left out, the natural world will be unprotected by Maori values. Also, if New Zealand scientists fail to play their part and deride Maori metaphors and Maori respect for spiritual qualities, Māori control of the landscape will be displaced by Pakeha control, as it has been by the appointment of Pākehā wild life and conservation officers. If Maori spiritual values get pushed aside, we have not constructed a bicultural society. On the other hand, the elders deeply appreciate scientific validation of their inherited knowledge. Both sides can proceed through critical appreciation of the other’s perspective.

I walk in the footsteps of Dr David Miller (1952), a former director of Entomology Division at DSIR who compiled a list of 385 Maori names of insects from historical records; Dr Graeme Ramsay (n.d.) who examined Maori names of Orthoptera, and Winstanley and Brock (n.d.) who examined Maori names of crickets. These entomologists were vexed by the inadequacy of the historical records. Maori names have been defined in terms of common English classification, as in Williams’ Dictionary (1971): ngaro ‘fly, blow fly’. Ngaro is an Austronesian category of short-legged, stout-bodied flying insects, which includes house flies, blow flies, the native solitary bees and wasps, and excludes long-legged, weak-bodied flies such as crane flies, sand flies and mosquitoes. Further, Williams’ Dictionary does not identify dialects, and entomologists have meanwhile attempted to relate dialect variations to different species. Thus, New Zealand has about 40 species of cicada, 12 of which are found in Northland. Each Tai Tokerau dialect name, tātarakihi, kihikihi, paeke, encompasses all cicadas, but Miller (1952:44), using historical records without field work, proposed: “Tatarakihi could be specifically applied to the spatial, sibilant-voiced cicadas such as Melampsalta ca ss io p e ” It was clear that field work was necessary to complete gaps in the record, to provide accurate definitions of Maori concepts, and to determine dialect territories.

FIELDWORK 1985-88This was a dramatic period in which to carry out fieldwork. I worked in a climate of historical injustice; of

hostility at the presence of a Pakeha; of confrontation and challenge; of hospitality, courtesy, and shared commitment; of wry reflection, and sadness at the loss of the old Maori culture loved by the elders.

My role was to open a channel for exchange of knowledge between the elders and natural scientists. Reservation was expressed that my records would not be accurate. Certainly, knowledge was withheld, but knowledge was given with sincere wish for its accurate transmission. I came to see that those elders who were bellicose, contentious and abrupt towards me, acted likewise to everyone : the old generation of Maori people is not racist: their spirit responds to whatever lives. In our explorations of the meanings of words, is their love of their language and their inherited Maori culture. It is my own generation, with its loss of knowledge, which reacts with anger.

At Kaitaia, my work was criticised by a Kohanga Reo instructor. She observed that the work proceeded because of my perseverance and because Maori people were unaware that the names of insects comprised a coherent body of knowledge to the Pākehā. She said people gave the knowledge because it was the first time they had been asked to recall it. I was shaken by her distress at the raiding Pākehā, and I was sometimes aware, in households, that my peers resented their parents transmitting their knowledge to me.In Auckland ACORD, the Auckland Committee on Racial Discrimination, sent a deputation of Pakeha women to instruct me to stop the work. They said Pakeha must not transmit Māori knowledge. At Whangarei, I met Māori journalists who, instead of staring through me, embraced natural science as an aspect of māoritanga they had overlooked, and berated me for being so weak-kneed. At the rate I was progressing, they said, the work would take a lifetime.

At Panguru, Charlotte Cassidy and Whina Cooper were preparing for the Pope’s visit. Whina had me remove the tinsel braid from Charlotte’s dress, saying it was in bad taste. Then Whina played the piano while Charlotte soaked her feet in a basin of warm water. The field work was a saga of war and peace.

446 Wendy Pond

STATE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGENatural scientists are still exploring the Gondwanaland continental fragments which exist today as South

Africa, South America, Antarctica, Australia-New Guinea-Tasmania, and Aotearoa-New Caledonia. So far, ten thousand species of insects have been described from Aotearoa; entomologists estimate this country would have twenty thousand species of insects, spiders, and other terrestrial arthropods (Watt 1983:62).

Settlers from the central Pacific, arriving one thousand years ago, found few ants and termites, which had been abundant in their tropical homelands; instead, they met a great variety of cicadas, stick insects, and large­bodied ground crickets which they called wētā. They drew on the faunal categories of both west and east Polynesian classifications, and devised a proliferation of names for caterpillars. Natural scientists from the northern hemisphere, arriving two hundred years ago, first saw the insect fauna as “sparce” (Banks in Andrews 1986:16). Later, they regarded its composition as “unbalanced”, finding it well represented in some groups, such as stick insects, and little represented in others, such as butterflies. All these settlers continued to use classification systems derived from landscapes where the faunal composition had been different.

From 1845 to 1920 in New Zealand, there were missionary-naturalists, explorers and ethnographers who combined observations on flora and fauna with Maori names and Maori lore, publishing their records in Transactions and P roceedings o f the N ew Zealand Institute, Journal o f the Polynesian Society, and elsewhere: Beattie, Best, Colcnso, Fereday, Polack, Rcischeck, Smith, Taylor and others. Because of the strangeness of the New Zealand fauna, they were unable to define scientifically many Maori names they recorded, but they nevertheless left records which later generations can decode: mumutaua, ‘<3 large brown beetle fou n d on the sandh ills’ (P ericoptus truncatus, sand scarab); pepetuna, ‘very large green m oth’ (Aenetus virescens, pūriri moth) (Taylor 1848: 15-16).

Meanwhile, entomology was advanced by professional and amateur collectors who returned their specimens to the British Museum: Capt. J.L. Stokes, J.Enys, Andrew Sinclair (Colonial Secretary under Governor Fitzroy), Percy Earle, and others. Whereas Best had recorded Tūhoe knowledge of each stage of development of the huhu grub (Best 1908:239), these immigrant collectors used Latin names and Linnaean principles of classification; they contributed to the traditions of British science. This attitude hardened with the advancement of science in the Pacific. The three volumes of M arquesan Insects published by the Bishop Museum during the 1930s do not contain Marquesan names for the insects. Thus, we don’t have Maori names for dragonfly larvae, peripatus, or thrips because modem entomologists haven’t recorded them, being no longer bicultural. Williams’ D iction ary still doesn’t have scientific identifications for the Maori names pukurua ‘some earth grub,’ and wīwī ‘a red and yellow stinging fly,’ because modem linguists are no longer naturalists. While the alienation of our type specimens to Europe continues to hamper research by New Zealand entomologists (Watt 1970:53).

In the 80s, biogeographical research has brought awareness that Aotearoa is a haven for unique forms. Meanwhile, ecological research has added the perception that the native insects were unprepared for the mammalian predators introduced by human settlers (rat, stoat, cat, dog, pig), and that most insect species depend on particular plants of the native habitat throughout their life-cycle (Watt 1977:79). Seventy per cent of New Zealand’s forest cover has been removed (King 1984:135). As the natural environment is destroyed and polluted, the old Maori culture loved by the ciders loses the conditions for its continuity. As the pūriri trees arc burnt for pine plantation and pasture, the mokoroa caterpillars lose their habitat. As the mokoroa are no longer extracted from their tunnels and threaded on tit! fibre for eel bait, and as the pū mokoroa pouches in which they are kept are no longer woven, Maori language loses its technical words, and the culture loses its accuracy of expression. Natural scientists share with the Maori elders desire for the preservation of wildlife and its habitats (Gibbs 1978:330).

In the early 1980s, two American entomologists, Ottc and Alexander (1983), travelled through the Australian outback, recording the song structures of crickets. Entomologists were astonished to leam that Australia has 500 species of crickets. Meanwhile, songs of undcscribed crickets have been reported from different parts of Northland. However, the unfinished state of systematic description does not hinder my objectives: each Tai Tokerau dialect name, rirerire, pihapihareina, kākarapiha, includes all crickets. Indeed, the 80s have provided the conditions for this work to be undertaken, when elders who closely observed the natural world are still alive, and New Zealand entomologists have grasped the characteristics of southern faunas. A difficulty is, however, that the young science of New Zealand entomology is attempting to define well-honed, metaphorically presented, Maori concepts.

Many native creatures are no longer to be found where the elders once looked for them; and many of those with the knowledge have retired from the occupations of road development, forestry, fencing and gum digging which kept them in daily contact with the insect world. In the absencc of the former extensive kūmara gardens in which to find living specimens, the identification of the mūwharu was first suggested by descriptions from the elders: “My grandmother would search for the mūwharu in the soil of the kumara gardens, before the runners had developed. She would scratch in the soil around the centre shoots and find the caterpillar with her

AN Classification and the Choice of Endeavour 447

fingers.” (Miria Thompson at Whangaruru). “In certain years, the mūharu moves along the rows going from one kumara plant to the next, leaving cut-off shoots wilting in the sun.” (Dan Clark at Raupo). “The mūwharu destroys the food.” (Manga Tau at Tautoro). It is entomologists who have the field experience to link Maori and scientific knowledge, and who have the systematic knowledge of the faunal inventory needed to define Māori principles of classification.

In the dialects of Northland, mūwharu, mūharu, ngūharu is the caterpillar of the greasy cutworm moth, Agrotis ipsilon aneituma (Walker). The caterpillar lives in the soil, cutting through the stems of kumara shoots below the surface, and thereby destroying more of the plant than it consumes. Amongst Tai Tokerau, it is the most greatly feared pest of kūmara. In a waiata by a Ngāti Whātua composer (Ngata 1961:194-9), the mūwharu appears as a metaphor of death and destruction:

Mahi atu tāua ki te tūkou no kai, ē If we were to grow the kumara for foodE nohoia mai ana e te mūharu The cutworm would bide her timeMahi atu tāua ki te tūkou no Rongo, ē If we were to grow the kumara for RongoE nohoia mai ana e te hotete The sphinx would bide her timeKahore ia nei, ē, ko te tohu o te mate There is nought but omens of deathWhakapiri noa ake tāua, ē.... Let us in our plight seek refuge ....

Taaoho, the paramount warrior chief of Ngāti Whātua, composed this lullaby during the warfare with Ngāpuhi in the 1820s. Rongo-maraeroa is the deity of cultivated foods, of which kumara was the most important. Tūkou is a variety of kūmara. In 1982, DSIR published a revised edition of A Catalogue (1860- 1960) o f New Zealand Insects and their Host Plants (Spiller and Wise 1982). The greasy cutworm is listed as a pest of beetroot, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, swede, turnip, tobacco, cape gooseberry, . . . but not kumara; nor does the list of pests of kūmara include the greasy cutworm.

It was not only in natural science, from the 1930s on, that the ambitions of the new bourgeois scientists were impoverishing Polynesian knowledge. Editions of P ratt’s Grammar and D ictionary o f the Samoan Language had been published between 1862 and 1911. Rev. George Pratt was a minister of the London Missionary Society, with knowledge of Samoan language and protocol. He knew what the edible Olethrius grub is called when presented to a chief. In 1966, Dr George Milner of the University of London produced a new Samoan Dictionary. Table 1 compares insect names recorded in the 1911 edition of Pratt’s dictionary with Milner’s 1966 dictionary.

Table 1: Some Samoan names of insects recorded in the dictionaries of Rev. G. Pratt and Dr G. Milner

PRATT 1862-1911 Tupa’ia ‘[click] beetle’Naonao ‘[taro leaf hopper]’Se ‘grasshopper’ Tafatafālauniu [‘stick insect’]

Mulimaga ‘earwig’Lagomumu ‘[leaf-cutter] bee’’Ano’ano ‘nest of lago mumu’Lagolei ‘k. fly’Lagomea ‘[maggot] fly’Afato ‘edible grub’Moe’ese’ese ‘name of afato when spoken before chiefs’.

MILNER 1966

se ‘stick insect’ (se’ailauniu recorded in field work)

lago mea ‘k. butterfly’ ’afato ‘grub, larva’

I put on my KD sandals and strolled through Ponsonby and Grey Lynn, in metropolitan Auckland, asking Samoan people about their names for insects. The names recorded by Pratt are currently in use, in the 1980s.

In Northland, New Zealand, the very old Maori people, like Tauwhitu Papa at 97, and Whina Cooper at 93, use pūngāwerewere for both the spider and its web, as speakers of other Austronesian languages do. In the north Hokianga, I heard a woman using aweawe for the sheet webs which appear in the morning dew. She distinguished them from pūngāwerewere, the orb webs. As field work continued, I asked many people for the meaning of aweawe, recording ‘strands of soot clinging to the chimney after burning kauri’, ‘the red rootlets which hang from the lower branches of pohutukawa’, ‘tattered hemline of a dress’, ‘discarded flax fibres’, and ‘dusty old cobwebs in the comer of the ceiling’. These latter usages are still unrecorded in the seventh edition of Williams’ Dictionary o f the Maori Language.

448 Wendy Pond

In the 30s and 40s, American linguists had begun developing a linguistic science analogous with the natural sciences (Newmeyer 1986:5-6). From the 1960s, the energies of many New Zealand students of linguistics were diverted to American structuralist theories and grammatical analysis. Māori language waned for lack of alert research which would have recorded technical vocabulary and included the knowledge of the elders in the development of bicultural disciplines of scientific enquiry.

STATE OF MĀORI KNOWLEDGEThe elders were contentious. Some elders said that recording their knowledge is a means of divesting them

of it; that their insect names will enrich the body of scientific knowledge which will then displace Maori knowledge, so that new Maori knowledge about the natural world is no longer generated.

Some elders said research is a means of taking a short cut, instead of proceeding through patient observations. They said it is better to observe the interaction: that knowledge will last, whereas explanations are speculations, changing with each generation.

Another said knowledge of nature taught in person by an elder to her mokopuna, is transmitted together with her love of nature; knowledge learned from books is readily forgotten, and the facts themselves may not be what it is important to convey.

Some knowledge of insect life-cycles was withheld by elders who feared it would be subjected to scientific ridicule. Others said writing down accounts of the spiritual aspects of the natural world makes it noa; they said there would be a mis-imprisonment of their knowledge.

Some elders have decided not to pass on their knowledge saying that conditions for the culture they love no longer exist. Their multicultural mokopuna (Māori-Pākehā-Sāmoan-Rarotongan) do not identify with Maori culture but with “world” culture; rural people migrate to cities in search of waged labour; under western economic practices, the natural environment is robbed to support city lives, leaving rural families without natural resources for their Maori economy. These elders foresee that the accounts inherited from their ancestors will be retold without spiritual and metaphorical sense, without knowledge of the deeper meanings of words, appearing simple.

The elders enjoyed contention. They challenged the aims of the research. They assisted with profound courtesy. They sent me on to other elders and asked me to come back and tell them what I ’d found out. The work repairs their own knowledge.

In Ngāti Hine territory are two old women who are cousins, living within walking distance. The kūmara hawk moth (sphinx) caterpillar, Agrius convolvuli, is called āvvheto by one and hotete by the other. Āwhato/āwheto and hotete are both listed in the fifth (1917) edition of Williams’ Dictionary as ‘larva of Sphinx convolvuli’. Customarily, each Austronesian family retains its own traditions of knowledge, as these cousins have done. However, as the work progressed, the elders recognised that the knowledge of families is no longer coherent; that no one of them any longer knows all the insect names; that their mokopuna are seeking knowledge from a wider universe. My role is to reclaim Maori naming of the insect fauna by returning the combined knowledge of the elders together with historical accounts and entomological research. I am doing this in the form of a nature study manual.

NATURE STUDY MANUALThe work with Ngāti Hine began on the banks of the Kaikou river, with the children swimming in the

dappled light of the Lombardy poplars and old Te Rongomau Kāka being asked by his son for the names of insects in my collection. I was still painfully shy of the hostility I read in people’s faces. After imparting his knowledge, Te Rongomau said: “I suppose that’s another Pakeha we’ll never see again.” Then I saw my presence from a different perspective: that there is goodwill towards the project if I will only play my part of proceeding through friendship and giving service to people, instead of through obsession with accomplishing the work. This is my methodology, the context in which the knowledge is imparted, and an ethical commitment on my part.

Entomological research in New Zealand was first concerned with determining species according to morphological characteristics. This conviction has been shaken by recognition that the songs of stridulating insects, the pheromone scents of moths, and DNA analysis might produce a different determination of species, or distinguish species with greater accuracy than human perception of morphological characteristics has accomplished. While Maori culture has emphasised the eccentric habits which distinguish one insect group from another, recognising that each creature has its own wairua, its own spiritual mana, little entomological research on ethology, i.e., the behaviour of New Zealand insects, has been undertaken. This is partly because, historically, classification has been based on morphology and has been an end in itself: taxonomic research provides the reference system for all natural history. Partly, entomologists assumed New Zealand insects would behave like members of their order overseas; and partly research is inhibited by policies aimed at

AN Classification and the Choice of Endeavour 449

marketable results. My efforts therefore are directed to finding naturalists for each New Zealand insect group with knowledge of habit and habitat.

My aim is to compile a nature study manual wherein Northland’s insect fauna is presented according to Tai Tokerau categories, so New Zealanders experience that vision. Thus, NGARO will comprise accounts from elders and entomologists of ngaro pāira (Syrphidae), the native, black and yellow hover flies which rise in the air and hum; ngaro wlwl (Sphecidae and Pompilidae), the native, solitary wasps which store spiders in their egg cells; and ngaro ngāhere (Apidae), the wild honey bees introduced in the 1830s, whose honey is collected from hollow pūriri trunks.

The aim is not to describe all aspects of an insect’s life, but to select scientific accounts to support Tai Tokerau themes. Thus, the pertinent characteristic of cicadas to Tai Tokerau is their song, which is evoked at weddings as a metaphor of procreation and multiplicity; “E— tiki, e— rihi” or “Paeke, paeke, eru- erua.” New Zealand entomologists have recently identified cicada species by using song structures as distinguishing features (Fleming 1975:47). Accounts from entomologists will describe how to recognise each of the 12 Northland cicadas by its song and by its favourite vegetation. Thus, the Tai Tokerau focus on the cicada’s song remains to the fore, while the next generation of Northland children will be able to distinguish 12 songs, learning to think analytically from scientific accounts of the structure of the songs and metaphorically from Maori accounts of the social import of the song.

Both Maori elders and commercial growers had observed that the mūwharu caterpillar, the greasy cutworm, destroyed their crops in certain years and not in others. An amateur entomologist, Ken Fox, placed a light trap on the south Taranaki coast and also asked the Sedco 3 oil riggers, 40 km offshore, to collect moths and butterflies flying into the rig. He found that from mid-January to mid-April in some years, during strong westerly winds, large numbers of mūwharu moths land along the Taranaki coastline, some arriving with their wings in perfect condition. He noted that January to April are the months when the mūwharu moths migrate within Australia. Using records of wind speed from the Meteorological Service, he estimated that the moths would make the 2000 km journey in two to three days (Fox 1978:376). To variations in climate, soil quality and agricultural practice, is added intermittent immigration of moth populations from Australia.

The manual will contain accounts from scientists of how they have solved problems, so that the methodology of science is made accessible to the next generation. I hope every Northland household will have a copy. New Zealand’s insect fauna has a high proportion of microscopic species, which entomologists are describing. Neither Maori names, inherited from Austronesian classification of a tropical fauna in the Pacific, nor common English names inherited from the Northern hemisphere, are suited to this vision. The manual will give both cultures a tūrangawaewae for developing a bicultural science of Aotearoa.

And, in our minds, every one of us Broke precept and yoke:Rootless, rootless Not worth yoking Careless of heritage.

* * *

I will keep the island a while more in my song because of the honesty of shore, rock and stone.

Mairtin o Direain, b.1910 Translated by Michael o hUanachain The Pleasures of Gaelic Poetry, ed. Sean Mac Reamoinn, 1982.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research has been funded by the New Zealand Lottery Board and the Social Science Research Fund Committee. The Maori Trustee (Mr. Tom Parore), the Minister of Internal Affairs (Hon. Peter Tapsell), the Minister of Education (Hon. Russell Marshall), and the Head of Systematics Section, Entomology Division at DSIR (Dr. G.W. Ramsay) kindly assisted the project. The author thanks Te Arani Peita, Valerie Jacobs, John Dugdale, Dr George Gibbs and Dr John Andrews for their contributions to this paper.

450 Wendy Pond

GLOSSARY

Aotearoa New Zealandhui community gatheringkarakia prayerkohanga reo pre-school centre of mother-tongue instruction in Maorimana kind of force, generated by living beings, equivalent

to physical forces.m āoritanga Maori knowledge and beingmokopuna grandchildmokoroa caterpillar of Aenetus virescens, the pūriri mothnoa devoid of significanceP āk e h ā person of European descentpū mokoroa small pouch woven from kiekie leaves, in which

mokoroa caterpillars are kepttapu ritual restrictiontltl cabbage tree, Cordyline spp.turangawaewae home basewaiata songwairua spirit

REFERENCES

ANDREWS, J.R.H., 1986. The Southern Ark: Zoological Discovery in New Zealand 1769-1900. Auckland, Century Hutchinson.

BEST, Elsdon, 1908. Maori Forest Lore. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 41:231-85. FLEMING, C.A., 1975. Acoustic Behaviour as a Generic Character in New Zealand Cicadas (Hemiptera: Homoptera).

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 5:47-64.BISHOP MUSEUM, 1932. Marquesan Insects. Honolulu, Pacific Entomological Survey, Publication 1. Bulletin 98.-----------, 1935. Marquesan Insects. Honolulu, Pacific Entomological Survey, Publication 7. Bulletin 114.-----------, 1939. Marquesan Insects. Honolulu, Pacific Entomological Survey, Publication 8. Bulletin 142.FOX, K.J., 1978. The Transoceanic Migration of Lepidoptera to New Zealand - a History and a Hypothesis on

Colonisation. The New Zealand Entomologist, 6:368-80.GIBBS, G.W., 1978. The Role of the Amateur Entomologist in New Zealand. The New Zealand Entomologist, 6:328-

34.KING, Carolyn, 1984. Immigrant Killers. Auckland, Oxford University Press.MILLER, David, 1952. Insect People of the Maori. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 61:1-61.MILNER, G.B., 1966. Samoan Dictionary. London, Oxford University Press.NGATA , A.T., 1961. Nga Moteatea. Part 2. Wellington, Polynesian Society.NEWMEYER, Frederick J., 1986. Linguistic Theory in America. Second Edition. Florida, Academic Press.OTTE, Daniel, and R.D. ALEXANDER, 1983. The Australian Crickets (Orthoptera.Gryllidae). Academy of Natural

Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph 22.PRATT, George, 1911. Pratt's Grammar and Dictionary of the Samoan Language. Malua, London Missionary

Society. Fourth edition, revised by J.E. Newell.SPILLER, D., and K.A.J. WISE, 1982. A Catalogue (1860-1960) of New Zealand Insects and their Host Plants.

Revised and edited by P.S. Dale and P.A. Maddison. Wellington, DSIR, Bulletin 231.RAMSAY, G.W., n.d. Maori and English Common Names of New Zealand Orthopteroid Insects. Unpublished MS. TAYLOR, Richard, 1848. A Leaf from the Natural History of New Zealand. Aucldand, G.T. Chapman.WATT, J.C., 1970. Coleoptera. Paper presented to the Symposium: The Present Status of Taxonomic Entomology in

New Zealand. The New Zealand Entomologist, 4:51-4.-----------, 1977. Conservation and Type Localities of New Zealand Coleoptera, and Notes on Collectors 1770-1920.

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 7:79-91.-----------, 1983. Hexapoda, Myriapoda and Arachnida, in P.J. Brownsey and A.N. Baker (eds), The New Zealand Biota

- What Do We Know after 200 Years? Wellington, National Museum.WILLIAMS, H.W., 1917. A Dictionary of the Maori Language. Wellington, Government Printer. Fourth edition.-----------, 1971. A Dictionary of the Maori Language. Wellington, Government Printer. Seventh edition, revised by

the Advisory Committee on the Teaching of the Maori Language, Department of Education.WINSTANLEY, W.J., and R.L. BROCK, n.d. Maori names for crickets. Unpublished MS.