it provided an adequate supply of food in the vicinity of the nest, and thus obviated the necessity of the parents being absent from them for long. But manifestly no matter how active a male may be in driving away members of its own sex and kind, it will neither make its position secure, nor insure a supply of food for its young, so long as any number of individuals of different kinds are allowed to establish themselves in the same space of ground. On the one hand, then, we have the fact that there is constant strife between males of close affinity, whilst on the other, we know that many species require like conditions of existence and are bound to assemble wherever these conditions are suitable; and we can infer that the territory would fail to serve its purpose if no restriction were imposed upon the measure of such assemblies.
The question then arises: Does all this warfare contribute towards the attainment of reproduction? Not far from my house there is a small water meadow, three acres in extent, which for some years has been derelict and is now overgrown with the common rush (Juncus communis[1]) and small alder trees. For three successive seasons I watched the bird life of this meadow, and more especially the Reed-Buntings whose behaviour I was studying at the time. In every respect the meadow was suitable for this bird; there was an abundance of food and numberless situations in which nests could be placed. Each year all the pairs were successful
- ↑ The 'common rush' is now known as Juncus effusus. (Wikisource contributor note)
