New Zealand’s Waitoreke
Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 12th, 2006
Could the Waitoreke be related to the Oriental small-clawed otter (Amblonyx cinereus)?
Next to the giant moa reports, the most discussed mystery animal of New Zealand is the waitoreke. Maoris and early colonists on the nation’s South Island frequently reported a small otterlike animal known as the kaureke and also as the waitoreke.
Late nineteenth-century writers on New Zealand’s natural landscape tried to fit the sightings into some logical framework, notwithstanding the reality that no otters, beavers, or other European animals then existed in that country.
Around 1855 the Rev. Richard Taylor interviewed a man who claimed repeated observations of an animal in the Middle Island, near Dusky Bay, on the southwest coast. The witness called it a muskrat from the strong smell it emitted. He said its tail was thick and resembled the ripe pirori, the fruit kie-kie, whose appearance is not unlike that of a beaver’s tail.
Another witness, Tamihana te Rauparaha, judged it to be more than double the size of the Norway rat and to possess a large, flat tail. A man named Tom Crib said he himself had not seen the “beavers” but on several occasions had come upon their habitations. He had seen little streams dammed up as well as houses like beehives erected on one side, having two entrances, one from above and the other below the dam.
A decade or so later Ferdinand von Hochstetter wrote: “From certain terms occurring in the Maori language, and from the most recent observations we may infer beyond doubt, that New Zealand still harbours some few sporadic mammalia, which have thus far escaped the searching eye of science. Besides these names we find the name Waitoreke, which has been only lately clearly defined, having been hitherto applied sometimes to an otter-like, and sometimes to a seal-like animal. According to the reports of Dr. J. Haast, the existence of this animal has been recently established beyond a doubt; it lives in the rivers and lakes in the mountain ranges of the South Islands, is of the size of a large cony with glossy brown fur, and is probably to be classed with the otters.”
The word waitoreke comes from a Maori root word for “water.” Related words such as waikeri (swamp) and waikare (clear water) exist in the Maori language. The waitoreke is also called or confused with an animal called the kaureke.
Theorists have speculated that the waitoreke is an otter species, a seal, a beaver and possibly of the order Monotremata (like the platypus and echidnas; egg laying mammals). Whatever the animal is (or was), it remains unrecognized by science.
The above description is from Cryptozoology A to Z, (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1999).
So what is being discussed? An otter? A seal? A beaver? Or maybe even the known Asian animal, an otter civet? People may be ready to ask the questions finally.
The attitude may be changing. A journal has taken time to spotlight the waitoreke. Thanks to cryptozoologist Chad Arment for pointing this out, and to naturalist Jim Conroy for writing the following:
IUCN/SCC Otter Specialist Group Bulletin
Volume 23 Issue 1 (October 2006)
The Otter In New Zealand – Did Such An Animal Exist?
Jim Conroy
Celtic Environment Ltd. Old Mart Road Torphins
Aberdeenshire AB31 4JG, UK
There has recently been some renewed interest in the possibility that a species of otter existed in New Zealand. This short note examines the information available. It makes no attempt to evaluate the existence or not of such an animal, rather it is presented to perhaps further discussion on the matter.
New Zealand was reputed to have had an indigenous mammal living in the lakes and rivers of South Island at the time of the first European settlement (see Cook, 1777, Vol. 1: p. 98 for example). No specimen was ever collected, the information being based primarily on second-hand Maori accounts and other unsubstantiated observations.
Early reports from 1844 referred to beavers living on the east side of Lake Wanaka (Hocken, 1898), but Mantell (1851), describing accounts of this animal by the local Maoris, concluded that “altogether the account pointed to an animal resembling the otter or badger, rather than to the beaver”. Von Hochstetter (1867, p 161) mentions a letter received from Julian Haast in 1861, in which the author wrote “I frequently saw its tracks ….. They resemble the tracks of our European otter – only a little smaller”.
An early dictionary (Taylor, 1848), translated the Maori word waitoreke as “otter (uncertain seal)”; but a more recent standard Maori dictionary (Williams, 1957) omits waitoreke altogether; the word being considered ungrammatical (Krumbiegel, 1950).
With the revised interest in the “New Zealand otter” in the mid 1900s, Watson (1960) reviewed all the available literature and concluded that “there is very little ground for any belief in the animal’s existence; nevertheless a shadow of doubt remains and it would be unwise altogether to ignore the possibility however remote it may be”.
The possible existence of the New Zealand otter is discussed, because if such an animal ever existed, its importance and significance could hardly be exaggerated. Darwin (1888, vol. 3: p 6) said of the animal, should one be found it might “turn out something like the Solenhofen bird” (Archaeopteryx).
REFERENCES
Cook, J. (1777). A Voyage towards the South Pole and around the World. (2 vols.). London.
Darwin, F. (1888). The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. London. (3 vols.).
Hocken, T.M. (1898). Contributions to the Early History of New Zealand. London.
Krumbiegel, I. (1950). Das Waitoreki, ein angeblich neues Säugetier aus Neuseeland. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde Beiheft, 18: 110-115 [in German].
von Hochstetter, F. (1867). New Zealand. Stuttgart.
Mantell, G.A. (1851). Petrifications of their Teachings; or a Handbook to the Gallery of Organic Remains of the British Museum. London
Watson, J.S. (1960). The New Zealand ‘otter’. Records of the Canterbury Museum, 7: 175-183.
Williams, H.W. (1957). A Dictionary of Maori Language (6th edn.). Wellington.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
How about a variation on the Australian platypus?
PS. and being aquatic (hence presumably not often sighted), who’s to say it is no longer around? Although the accounts of dam-building would suggest otherwise, perhaps they are truly not there after all? And the likelihood of finding remains must be remote at best.
It would make a great project to query the nation’s museums to see if there are any bone specimens which have been collected (preferably early post-colonization), which have not yet been described.
Platypus was my first thought, seems they just need to go out there and set up some platypus traps in areas where they are suspicious of activity and see if anything shows up.
It’d be so neat to be in a part of the world where things like this happen. I’d love to check a trap somewhere sometime and have something no one’s ever seen before.
If this animal is real, it would be a groundbreaking discovery as there were not supposed to be any indigenous mammals in New Zealand before it was colonized. I would not think it could be an introduced species as these were sighted by the maori before European settlers arrived. If this is an indigenous mammal, it would open exciting new possibilities for how the native fauna has evolved on the islands.
Yes, its slightly possible that otters could have reached New Zealand, possibly even enough to form a breeding population but my money is still on a native monotreme.
Having studied this animal – see my website – I tend to feel some of the sightings of this creature were misidentifications of a more common animal at the time – The Kuri – or Maori dog.
However, there have also been many sightings of an otter like animal and I am of the opinion that the creature responsible may well have been an Oriental small-clawed otter (Amblonyx cinereus) or otter of similar species.
There have been many anomalous Tamil artifacts found in New Zealand’s early history. These otter may have been aboard and stranded here. If they did manage to form a breeding colony that would explain many sightings, generally on the South- Eastern Coast of the South Island.
However if a colony did once exist sadly I feel it is all but extinct or on the verge of.
Modern sightings are rare and after a search was carried out, I was told many of the areas this animal was said to inhabit are now very urbanised.
Though there are still very very remote areas not frequented by man, these would be the only refuge for such an animal if it still existed.
Tony Lucas
New Zealand Cryptozoologist
The “monotreme theory” of the waitoreke is, in my opinion, based on some VERY shakey ground.
ie.
1) The reference to the kaureke animal laying eggs.
2) The opportunity for a monotreme to have reached New Zealand “dryshod” from Gondwana and set up shop.
Firstly, the kaureke animal (as reported by Maopo in the 19th century) is NOT the same as the waitoreke animal reported by others at the time. The “nearly white” and “egg-laying” kaureke that lived in the Arowhenua bush is almost certainly a Tuatara (reptile). Remember, Tamihana Te Rauparaha gave a FAR more detailed (and mammal-like) description of the waitoreke animal, and STRONGLY denied it laid eggs.
Secondly, although monotremes were certainly on the New Zealand land mass around the 80MYA “cast off” (based on Australian fossil discoveries) there has been NO evidence found to suggest the animals were ever here. So, to believe a relatively small population of monotremes died off millions of years ago, leaving very few/no traces is ONE thing … but to believe that a population existed (without speciation?) at least until the late 19th century, without leaving ANY traces … surely that is too big a leap of faith?
Yes, paleontologist HAVE searched for native land mammal remains … and found NONE.
What’s more, there are more mammal (rodent, mustelid) traps and infra-red research cameras in the South Island than there are kiwi! And human encroachment continues every year. So, rest assured, we ARE ready to make a discovery IF a platypus-like animal is out there.
But, in all honesty, you don’t believe the waitoreke is going to turn out to be a monotreme that:
a) lost it’s bill – like no other known monotreme,
b) never flourished – despite living in a predator-less environment,
c) remained undiscovered – in fossil or flesh – in New Zeland despite all the attempts to find it?
Do you??
Would it be at all possible to search for evidence of dam building? That seems to be one obvious visible feature that this animal left behind.
If such dams could be found, then perhaps other traces such as scats might be discovered.
Where would you find such dams? Under mud slides? I reckon needles in haystacks might be easier, but just another idea to keep in mind for those willing to search.
The dam building report by “Tom Crib” is HIGHLY suspicious:
1) Crib admitted he had never seen the “beavers” … yet he called them beavers? Why could they not have been birds? Or something else?
2) NO ONE else reported dams of ANY kind – before or since – ANYWHERE in New Zealand
3) A beaver – “native” or “displaced” – is probably the MOST unlikely explanation for the waitoreke. If New Zealand had damn-building beavers, at ANY time, we’d know about it!
I suggest any serious researcher ignore Crib’s report. He got his name in the history books … lets not encourage any other fantasists!