General copyright and disclaimer - ResearchSpace@Auckland ...

they became extinct”. 70 King too gives little insight into Reischek’s views on conservation when
he writes: “While it is true that Reischek has to be observed against what were accepted standards
at the time, the scale of his shooting and the fact that, for example, he later used kokako for soup
tends to diminish the admiration of a twentieth-century observer.” 71 In the case of the hihi, few
examples existed at the time in scientific collections around the world or even in New Zealand
until Reischek arrived on the scene and collected specimens for local museums and abroad. He
reasoned that he would therefore be doing a great service for science if he could find “wenigstens
einige Exemplare für wissenschaftliche Sammlungen”. 72 Even if one reads the explorer’s attitude
as hypocritical in light of his actions, a great deal of his views on conservation and the
environment appear in his predominantly ornithological contributions from Transactions and
Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute and Mittheilungen des Ornithologischen Vereines in
Wien, both of which deserve far more emphasis than the odd ‘reconstructed’ reference in
Sterbende Welt. 73 Furthermore, by leaving the comments of Andersen and King as the definitive
illustration of Reischek’s views, it implies that he was either alone in such behaviour, which is
certainly not the case, or at least stood out in his apparent recklessness. Although irresponsible by
today’s standards even if the numbers were in fact closer to 100 than 150, it should be
remembered that the population fluctuated throughout the 1880s on Little Barrier Island, 74 where
Reischek collected his samples due to their being extinct on the mainland, 75 but proceeded to
increase in number from the mid-1880s in spite of his actions. Today Little Barrier is New
Zealand’s foremost wildlife sanctuary for birds and animals that are at risk or else extinct on the
70 Cited in: King, Collector, 110, 155. In 1926, however, Andersen cites Buller’s statement that “Reischek and other
collectors” were responsible for the estimated 150 specimens, and states that it was Buller’s report that “evidently
seemed to do no more than make an opportunity for another collector” to take several more specimens after Reischek
had assured his friend that he “did not destroy them all” on Little Barrier (Johannes Andersen, Bird-Song and New
Zealand Song Birds. Auckland: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1926, 141; cf. Walter L. Buller, “Notes and Observations on
New Zealand Birds”, in: TPNZI 24 (1891): 77f.; Walter L. Buller, “Notes on New Zealand Birds”, in: TPNZI 25
(1892): 58).
71 King, Collector, 40. (See K. E. Westerskov, “Reischek’s observations of kokako during his travels in New
Zealand, 1877-89”, in: Forest and Bird 13:3 (1979): 7-12.)
72 Reischek, “Tiora”, 319.
73 See Nolden, German and Austrian Naturalists, 68, 72, 77-81, 89f.
74 In Sterbende Welt it states his killing of older male birds and feral cats was beneficial for population growth
between later expeditions (241). There is no way of knowing for certain whether this was in fact the case, but the
distribution of specimens collected during this period suggests there was indeed a difference in population size
(Angehr, “A Bird in the Hand”, 306f.).
75 The decline in the hihi population is usually attributed to either predation, most likely the black rat, loss of habitat
or else avian disease, resulting in their extinction on the mainland in the 1880s, with the last reported sighting in the
Tararua Ranges in 1883 (ibid., 301f.). Reischek, in contrast, lists the following possible causes: their being a source
of food and an object of hunters, the introduction of dogs, cats, rats and bees, as well as habitat destruction by
European settlers (Reischek, “Tiora”, 318f.). As a result, he also feared that the hihi would soon become extinct even
on Little Barrier (Reischek, “Ornithologische Beobachtungen aus Neu-Seeland”, in: MOVW 9:23 (1885): 211).
240