If Metoro is correct in identifying the slender kind of glyph we are investigating as a picture of the ceremonial staff ua - I take it for granted that an image in form of the ua staff would make him express himself as hakaua (to use the staff in some meaning) - then we understand how important the criterion 'slender' is. Only thin-bodied honu glyphs can be classified as hakaua glyphs.

Whether hakaua means to 'make rain' (haka ûa) is another question. The first of the examples in Vanaga of ua = 'cause, reason why something happens or is done' is he ûa te ua, au i-ta'e-iri-ai ki tooku hare, 'because of the rain, I did not go home' may be just a wordplay without any implication that the function of the staff is to produce rain.

Cb4-3 is rather thick-bodied and may be a mistake of Metoro. But following the principles for classification of glyphs according to how they look we must include it - borderline cases should be included. Likewise I probably made mistakes when including Bb6-39 and Bb7-12 (at which Metoro did not say hakaua), but they too may be said to be borderline cases.

I have suggested that the typical honu glyphs are combinations:

At Ab5-63 Metoro said hakaua. The upper part is slender, but hardly the bottom part. Maybe Ab5-63 is a combination of hakaua (top part) and something else (bottom part). Ea6-18 is very interesting, it seems to confirm the idea about 'legs' and 'arms' being separate items. The slender (and very much like a ua staff) Ea4-20 offers a comparison:

Ea6-18 must be included in our collection of hakaua glyphs (in spite of Metoro seemingly not recognizing) the fact:

But then the defintion of hakaua must be revised somewhat, to allow limbs, and we must once more look at all the GD17 glyphs to search for hakaua with limbs. If we accept limbs, then we must at least say that a slender neck is necessary (or we will get very many glyphs in our net). Yet, there are many glyphs to consider. Re-using earlier categories we first have GD17 glyphs at which Metoro said honu, and these have slender necks:

Next group contains GD17 glyphs at which Metoro did not say honu, but tagata. But here I have not listed the takaure glyphs. Neither have I included glyphs with heads seen sideways, I think we must demand en face for hakaua glyphs:

At last we have GD17 glyphs at which Metoro neither said honu nor tagata, but which are seen en face and which have slender necks. Takaure and tamaiti glyhs are excluded.

Furthermore, I have excluded glyphs where the 'arms' are not separate parts but clearly belonging to the 'body' - hakaua should not have 'arms'. This criterion proved to be powerful, by excluding a lot of glyphs: