Birds' nests; an introduction to the science of caliology

oe

Pee ereereet

IBY UAE EY

Rererstiotnes Soe

Sethe eee ene
Epaieanaesira es tees ctnietem eer

ALBERT R. MANN
LIBRARY

New YorK*STATE COLLEGES
OF
AGRICULTURE AND HomME ECONOMICS

AT

CoRNELL UNIVERSITY

DATE DUE

GAYLORD

Cornell University Libra

QL 675.D6

STs

Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu3 1924000206114

NESTS OF THE CASSIQUE (Page 266).

BIRDS’ NESTS

AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE SCIENCE OF CALIOLOGY

BY
CHARLES DIXON

“RURAL BIRD-LIFE,” ‘“‘THE GAME BIRDS AND WILD FOWL OF THE BRITISH
ISLANDS,” ‘BRITISH SEA BIRDS,” ‘‘ CURIOSITIES OF BIRD LIFE,”
‘“*THE MIGRATION OF BIRDS,” ‘‘AMONG THE BIRDS IN
NORTHERN SHIRES,” “THE STORY OF
THE BIRDS,” ETC., ETC.

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY A. T. ELWES

NEW YORK
FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY
LONDON
GRANT RICHARDS
1902

Ry

Cm
QLETS
D6

oa

PREFACE

Ir is a somewhat remarkable fact that notwithstanding
the extreme popularity of the subject of Birds’ Nests,
no book has yet been published entirely devoted to
these beautiful and curious objects. And yet their
study—the science of Caliology—is one of the most
fascinating branches of Ornithology, perhaps more
intimately connected with those difficult problems
and questions relating to the mental attributes of
what man in his ignorance is pleased to consider
the “lower animals,” than any other. Indeed, there
are many of us who would fain deny the existence
of any reasoning faculties whatever in birds, classing
their expression in a thousand different ways, all
under the vague, meaningless and ridiculous term
“ Instinct.”

A bird’s nest is the most graphic mirror of a bird’s
mind. It is the most palpable example of those
reasoning, thinking qualities with which these crea-
tures are unquestionably very highly endowed.
Evidence of this reasoning power confronts the
student of Birds’ Nests as he gazes upon each pro-
creant cradle, no matter how crude on the one
hand, or how elaborate on the other it may chance

Vv

vi PREFACE

to be; for each type of home represents the best
possible harmony with the conditions under which
reproduction may take place.

Unfortunately, Birds’ Nests have been little studied
in relation to those important scientific questions
with which they are so inseparably involved. Alas,
too often the despoiling oologist carries off the
coveted eggs without even a glance at the cradle
which holds them, or with no thought to the philo-
sophy of the architectural arrangements (or to the
want of them) before him. Then on the other hand
there is the observer who views such structures as
objects of beauty only, ignoring all evidence of purely
utilitarian significance. or him, a pretty nest is
one to be admired for its beauty alone; but the
neatest and most elaborate and beautiful bird cradle
ever put together, is no more woven for beauty’s
sake, than the crudest nest-form is provided with
any view to the lack of it. Birds’ Nests are purely
utilitarian structures; their beauty or their ugliness,
their elaborate finish, or their crude workmanship
are matters of human sentiment only, and play no
part in the general plan of avine architecture. Upon
such a foundation the science of Caliology alone must
rest, and its philosophy must be woven round a utili-
tarian motive, not one in any sense of beauty for
its own sake.

The opportunities for the scientific study of Birds’
Nests are well-nigh endless; for almost every nest

PREFACE vii

presents special features and is an example of in-
dividual intelligence. At present our lack of informa-
tion relating to the manner in which a nest is made
in the majority of species is almost complete. The
building sex—the part played by the male bird, the
various stages through which a nest must pass before
completion, and a hundred other items require the
most patient observation. Even our lack of know-
ledge is vast concerning the nests of British birds
alone; and when we come to exotic species, informa-
tion is much more meagre still.

The present little volume has been written with the
object of guiding the student to an acquisition of a
scientific knowledge of Birds’ Nests. It has been
necessarily a brief one, but many lines of original
research have been indicated, and some sort of plan
promulgated upon which the science of Caliology may,
at all events, provisionally be based.

CHARLES Dixon.

PAIGNTON, S. DEvon,
1901.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

PAGE
Absence of literature relating to Birds’ Nests—Difficulty of classi-
fying Nests—The Philosophy of Birds’ Nests—Nests regarded
as Utilitarian Structures—Intelligence of Birds in Nest-building—
The Theory of Instinct—Changed Nesting Habits and Types—
Evidence against the Theory of Instinct—Variation in Nest-
building Skill—Wallace’s Theory of Birds’ Nests— Faculties
Employed by Birds in Nest-building—Retention of Old Habits by
Various Birds—Nest-building Tools—Differences in Nest-type—
Amongst Nearly Allied Birds—Abnormal Nest Materials—Abnormal
Nest sites—The Nest-building Sex—Instructions for Collecting and
Preserving Nests—Necessity for Recording Certain Facts—Preser-

vative for Nests—Storage of Nests c " . . : I

CHAPTER II

NESTLEsSS BIRDS, ANNEXERS, AND PARASITES

Conditions of a nestless state—Occasional lapses in the Nest-building
Habit—Nestless Birds~Tropic Birds and Vultures—Ringed Plover
—Coursers and Pratincoles—Stone Curlew—Gulls and Terns—Auks
—Nestless Petrels—Goatsuckers—Origin of the Nestless Habit—
Number of Eggs laid by nestless species—Annexing Birds—Birds
of Prey and Owls—The Kestrel—The Hobby—Honey Buzzard—
Orange-legged Hobby—lIceland Jer-Falcon—The annexing habit
not always universal in the same species—Egyptian Vulture—Turkey
Vulture—Cooper’s Hawk—Tawny Owl—Long-eared Owl—Teng-
malm’s Owl—Hawk Owl—Eagle Owl—American Barred Owl—Saw-
whet Owl—Green Sandpiper—Wood Sandpiper—Swallows—Birds
building in nests of other species—Great Titmouse—House Sparrow
—Purple Grackle—Spanish Sparrow in nest of Stork—Return of
Birds to old Nests—Parasitic Birds—Origin of the habit of Parasitism
—Coloration of Eggs of Parasitic Birds—Cow Bird—Birds laying
astray—Birds evicted by other species—Benevolent characteristics
in Birds—Origin of Parasitism through the young ‘ 39

ix

x CONTENTS

CHAPTER III

THE CrupgEsT NEgstT-Forms

PAGE

Apparent development of nest-building art—Illustrated by nest of Bull-
finch—By nests of Crows—By nests of ‘‘ Willow Wrens ”—Import-
ance of nesting conditions—The most skilful nest-builders—Crude
nest-forms of Ratite Birds—Nidification of the Ostrich—Of
the Falcons—Of certain Owls—Of the Coraciiformes—Of the
Psittaciformes—Of the Cuculiformes—Of certain Cuckoos—Of the
Columbiformes—Peculiarity in nests of Pigeons—Of certain Tyrant
Birds—Of the Pediophli or Sand Grouse—Of the Game Birds or
Galliformes—Similarity of architecture in this order—Nests of the
Charadriiformes—Of the Bustards—Of the Oystercatchers—Of the
Stilts—Of the Woodcocks—Of the Jacanas—Of the Crab Plover—
Crude nest-forms of the Divers—Of the Penguins—Of the Procel-
lariiformes—Of the Lariformes—Nests of the Noddy Tern—Of the
Skuas—Of the typical Gulls—Of the Black-headed Gull—Of the
Ducks and allied Birds—Of the Mergansers—Uses of down in these
Nests—Number of crude nest-builders—The State of the young when
hatched. . 7 . is : . "i : 59

CHAPTER IV
CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS

Nests made in earth tunnels—Sand Martins—Tunnel-boring Wood
Hewers—Nest of Sclerurus umbretta—Of the Kingfishers—Of the
Jacamars, Todys and Bee-eaters—Of certain Parrakeets—Of the
Burrowing Owl—Of the Puffins—Of the Petrels—Stormy Petrel—
Fork-tailed Petrel—Spectacled Petrel—Of the Whale Birds—Of the
Shearwaters—Cave-building Birds—The Jackdaw—The Choughs—
The Rock Dove—The Shag—Cock of the rock—Oil Bird—Edible
Swifts—Alpine Swift—Cave-building Swallows—Nests under stones
and in holes and fissures of rocks—Various Petrels—Little Auk—
Horned Puffin—Little Owl—Certain Parrots—Various Chats—Red-
starts and Accentors~Wall Creeper—Rose-coloured Starling—
Buntings and Swallows and Pipits—Timber-building Birds —Wood-
peckers and Wrynecks—Hornbills—Toucans and Trogons—Barbets
and Honey Guides—Parrots—Certain Cockatoos—Hoopoes —Rollers
—Titmice—Nuthatches—Certain Flycatchers—Sparrows—Nest of
Phylloscopus occipitalis—Scops Owl—Certain Ducks—Nests in
holes, in banks, or under tussocks of vegetation—Robins and
Buntings—Twite and Ring Ousel—Mound Birds—The Py
of Concealed Nests e 5 . » 87

CONTENTS xi

CHAPTER V

Open NESTS
PAGE
Open Nests a widely prevailing type—Nests of certain Geese—Nest of
the Screamer—Nests of Curassows, Guans and the Hoatzin—Of
Bonaparte’s Gull—Classification of ‘‘Open” Nests—Nests of the
Albatrosses—Of the Herons and Bitterns—Of the Spoonbills and
Ibises — Of the Storks—Nests of the Pelecaniformes— Of the
Gannets—Of the Cormorants—Of the Darters—Of the Pelicans—
Of the Frigate Birds—Of the Flamingoes—Of the Cranes—Of
the Rails and Finfoots—Nests of various Falconiformes—Of the
Vultures—Of certain Eagles—Of the Kites—Of the Hawks and
Harriers—Of the Ospreys— Nests of the Humming Birds—Of
certain Swifts—Of the Colies—Nests of the Passeriformes—Of
Crows and allied Birds—Of the Birds of Paradise—Of the Drongos
—Of the Orioles—Open Nest of a Hangnest—Of the Tanagers—
Of the Finches and allied Birds—Of the Larks—Of the Wagtails
and Pipits—Of the American Wood Warblers—Of the Honey-eaters
—Of the White-eyes—Of certain Flower-peckers—Of the Goldcrests
—Of the Bearded Titmouse—Of the Sbrikes—Of the Waxwings—
Of the Vireos—Of the Thrushes—Of the Whinchat—Of the Warblers
—Of the Mocking Birds—Of the Timeliide—Of the Tailor Birds
—Of the Laughing Thrushes—Of the Bulbuls—Of the Cuckoo
Shrikes — Of certain Flycatchers—Of certain Swallows—Of the
Tyrant Birds—Of the Chatterers—Of the Ant Thrushes—Of the
Pteroptochide—General Remarks on the Open or SNe renee ass
of Nest—Mimicry in Nest-building r 135

CHAPTER VI

DOMED AND RooFED NEsTs

Nest of the Hammer-head—Domed Nests of the Rails—Of certain Swifts
—Of various Parrots—Of the Lark-heeled Cuckoos—Nests of the
Broad-bills—Of the Lyre Birds—Domed type a dominant one in the
Order Passeriformes—Of the Magpies—Of certain Starlings—Of the
Meadow Starling—Of the Weaver Birds—Domed Nests of certain
Tanagers—Of the Sugar Birds—Of certain Sparrows—Other domed-
building Finches—Of the Bush Larks—Of certain American Wood
Warblers—Of the Sun Birds—Nests of the Sun Birds resembling
those of the Social Spiders—Nests of the Flower-peckers—Of certain
Titmice—Of the American Bush Tits—Of the Hill Tits—Of the
Rock Nuthatches—Of the ‘Palm Sparrow”—Of the Willow
Warblers—Of the Fantail Warblers—Of the Dippers—Of Origma
rubricata—Of the Wrens—Of the Timeliide—Of various Pomato-
thini—Of various species of Pellorneum—Triple types of Nest—

CONTENTS

Nests of certain Flycatchers—Of various Swallows—Of certain

‘Tyrant Birds—Of certain Chatterers—Of the Pittas—Of various

Wood Hewers—Of the Oven Bird—Of certain species of Pteropto-
chida—General Remarks . G ‘ . .

CHAPTER VII

PENDULOUS NESTS

Erroneous opinions respecting Pendulous Nests—Definition of Pendulous

INDEX é i . * . .

Nests—Rarity of this type in Avine Architecture—Variation in
shape of Nest in same species—Nests of the Penduline Tits—Of
various Flower-peckers — Of certain Honey-eaters—Of various
species of Gerygone—Of the Glossy Starlings—Of the Weaver-birds
—Of the Indian Weaver-bird—Extraordinary Nest of this Species—
Of the Yellow-crowned Weaver—Various shapes of Weaver-birds’
Nests— Method of building adopted by Weaver-birds— Weaver-
birds a striking feature of Eastern Bird Life—Nests of the Hang-
nests—Shape and dimensions of Nests—Changes in Materials used
according to locality occupied by species—Nest of Baltimore Oriole
—Reason displayed by Birds in Nest-building — Most typical
Pendulous Nests—Of various Cassiques—Nests of the Cassiques a
feature in tropical American scenery—The Cow Birds—Parasites
—Various facts relating to Pendulous Nests—Enemies to Birds and
Eggs—Resumé of previous chapters and conclusion . ‘ .

PAGE,

207

251

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

NESTS OF THE CASSIQUES . z fs : . Frontispiece
ABNORMAL NEST OF THE CHAFFINCH . Face page 13
THE RINGED PLOVER AND Eccs_ . . . 39 43

Eccs OF GREEN SANDPIPER IN OLD NEST OF

FIELDFARE a é : : ‘ . 3 50
NEsT OF THE RING Dove. : ; é . ‘5 7O
NEST AND EGGS OF THE MALLARD . 5 : % 83
NEST OF THE EDIBLE SWIFT . . ‘ F », 104
TYPICAL Nest OF A WOODPECKER . - : 55.) | AES
FLAMINGO AND NEST . ‘ : ‘ ‘ » =: 152
Nest oF CALLIOPE HUMMING BIRD ; F >, 164
GOLDEN ORIOLE AND NEST... . 5 2 » 197
NEST OF THE CHAFFINCH. : F : . », 180
MAGPIES AND NEST . : 7 é . : » «©6214
Nest OF MAGNIFICENT SUN BirpD . : ‘j 19-223
NEST OF THE LONGTAILED TIT : ‘ . 1, 226

NEST OF A WEAVER BIRD F ‘ . Fl +, 260

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

BIRDS’ NESTS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

Absence of Literature relating to Birds’ Nests—Difficulty of Classifying
Nests—The Philosophy of Birds’ Nests—Nests regarded as Utilitarian
Structures—Intelligence of Birds in Nest-building—The Theory of Instinct—
Changed Nesting Habits and Types—Evidence against the Theory of
Instinct—Variation in Nest-building Skill—Wallace’s Theory of Birds’ Nests
—Faculties Employed by Birds in Nest-building—Retention of old Habits
by Various Birds—Nest-building Tools—Differences in Nest-type—Amongst
Nearly Allied Birds—Abnormal Nest Materialk—Abnormal Nest Sites—The
Nest-building Sex—Instructions for Collecting and Preserving Nests—Neces-
sity for Recording Certain Facts—Preservative for Nests—Storage of Nests.
ALTHOUGH birds are by no means the only creatures
that make nests, either to shelter themselves or for
the purpose of reproduction, they are unquestionably
by far the most closely associated in the popular
mind with such structures. Popularly speaking a
bird and a nest are inseparable terms, one invariably
suggesting the other. Among insects, fishes, and
animals, for instance, there are many elaborate and
cunning nest-builders, but we have little hesitation in
stating that birds will still continue to furnish the
one popular example of Nature’s architects. There
must be few persons indeed, nowadays, unfamiliar
with a bird’s nest of some species or another; on .

3

4 BIRDS’ NESTS

the other hand the elaborate and wonderful homes
of the hornet, the sticklebat, and the dormouse (to
quote but three of the commonest examples) are
rarely seen and even less frequently examined by
ordinary observers.

It is a somewhat remarkable fact, that notwith-
standing the great and increasing popularity with
which nests are regarded as objects of admiration,
no work has within the past seventy years been
written entirely devoted to them; whilst little less
extraordinary, down to comparatively recent times
they have been almost entirely discarded by the
biologist, and their scientific study has been almost
completely ignored. This is all the more remarkable
when we bear in mind that their investigation not
only involves a study of the mental attributes of
the birds that build them, but is very intimately
associated with the habits and structure of their
feathered builders. Seventy years ago Rennie pub-
lished a book about nests, entitled The Architecture
of Birds; whilst in 1868 Dr Wallace promulgated
his celebrated “Theory of Birds’ Nests,” by far the
most scientific contribution to the subject which
had then been published. Darwin and one or two
other naturalists have briefly touched upon the
‘subject; whilst the late J. G. Woods’ popular
treatment of birds’ nests, in his Homes without
Hands, practically exhausts the special literature of
caliology. There are of course many memoirs and

INTRODUCTORY 5

so forth (amongst which we may allude to those
of the present writer, with criticisms thereon by
Allen, the American ornithologist) relating to nests,
scattered over various books and periodicals of a
natural history character; whilst the nests of a
very large proportion of the twelve thousand (in
round numbers) species of known birds have been
described in numerous ornithological works. Nests,
however, have never yet received that special treat-
ment which we intend to devote to them in the
present little volume.

The arrangement of the subject matter, so that
it may be at once comprehensive and intelligible,
in a work of this character, is attended by no little
difficulty. Nests do not admit of the same methods
of classification as the birds that build them. The
various types of nests are by no means peculiar
to groups or even genera, because we find most
wonderful exceptions in what are obviously closely
allied species. Neither can we classify nests by
materials, for we are confronted by a still more
bewildering similarity on the one hand, or an equal
diversity on the other—remotely related species
employing the same fabrics, closely allied birds,
even the same species, selecting vastly different
ones. It seems, therefore, the most satisfactory
way to divide nests into various grades and types
quite irrespective of their ownership, and as far as
possible to deal with the crudest nest forms first,

6 BIRDS’ NESTS

passing on to the more elaborate structures. First
of all, however, as nests are such an avine charac-
teristic, it seems desirable to glance at those birds
that do not make a nest at all.

Before doing so, and in order better to understand
the study of our subject, it becomes necessary to
enter at some length upon the more philosophical side
of it. There are, perhaps, few things in nature more
exquisitely pretty than the nests of certain birds;
not only do these structures appeal to us through
their beauty, but still more so through the creative
mind of the little architects that build them. But
mere admiration of these complex structures can lead
to nothing more; their beauty, great as it is, is by
no means the end and purpose for which they were
so deftly woven; we must discard their attractiveness
in this direction and ever keep prominently in view
their utilitarian purpose, should we desire to gain an
insight into their philosophy. We may almost safely
say that birds are not influenced by any sense of the
beautiful in making their nests. If they are we have
no direct proof of it, and the evidence that we at
present possess is purely of a negative kind. Apparent
instances of nest decoration from motives of beauty
rather than utility are presented by such nests as
the Chaffinch and the Long-tailed Titmouse, the
outer walls of which are generally garnished with
showy lichens, scraps of paper, bits of decayed wood,
and so forth. Gould, with a totally erroneous con-

INTRODUCTORY 7

ception of the facts, has stated that certain Humming
Birds decorate the outside of their nests with the
utmost taste, instinctively fastening upon them
beautiful pieces of flat lichen, or now and then
attaching a pretty feather in the same way. Darwin,
in the Descent of Man, unfortunately quotes Gould’s
deductions, and has thus been misled, like so many
other compilers before him, in giving as evidence of
a taste for the beautiful in birds, what in reality is
nothing of the sort. We believe that in every case
of nest decoration apparently prompted by a taste
for the beautiful, it will invariably and without ex-
ception be found that the primary, we may even say
the exclusive, motive is that of concealment; an effort
to evade discovery by harmonising the exterior of the
nest with surrounding objects, either by an assimila-
tion or blending of colour, or a collection of similar
material to that near which the nest is built. Let it
be clearly understood, however, that these remarks
are in no way intended to convey the idea that birds
have no taste for the beautiful. On the contrary,
birds as a group have perhaps this esthetic taste
more highly developed than any other living crea-
tures, man alone excepted. Some of the most con-
vincing evidence of this is furnished by the Bower
Birds, which are known to decorate their bowers or
places of courtship in a highly elaborate and often
gaudy manner. But these “ bowers” have nothing
to do with the nests, and are apparently intimately

8 BIRDS’ NESTS

associated with that love of display, ornate and
otherwise, which forms such a special feature in the
courtship of so many birds. The direct evidence in
support of the possession of this taste in birds would
fill a volume, but is of course quite beyond the subject
of Nests.

The nest of a bird then, apart from whatever natural
beauty the special conditions of environment or the
wants of the species may demand, must always be
regarded as an utilitarian structure. It is the re-
ceptacle which nest-building birds provide for the
purpose of containing their eggs during the period
of incubation, and afterwards the young until they
are sufficiently matured to follow a more volant
existence. When once these purposes are served,
the nest, no matter how elaborate or beautiful it
may be, or the immense amount of labour it may
have cost its owners, is forthwith deserted, either
for ever (and in the case of not a few elaborate
builders, such as the Long-tailed Titmouse and the
Chaffinch, this is invariably the case), or only used
again when the recurring necessities of reproduction
require it. Like the gaudy chrysalis or cocoon, and
notwithstanding its beauty, which has served but a
secondary and quite unappreciated purpose, it is
discarded and left to inevitable decay, its owners
taking no further interest in it whatever. The
leafless hedges in autumn disclose to us in large
numbers these deserted nests, whose beauty is

INTRODUCTORY 9

seen and appreciated by the human _ observer
alone.

But if birds display no taste for the beautiful in
their nests, their Intelligence in constructing them
is beyond the slightest question. This intelligence—
or perhaps reason is a better term—is abundantly
manifest from the selection of the site up to the
moment the last scrap of material is worked into the
structure. In dealing with this part of the subject
we reach a point in which it becomes necessary to
decide whether a bird builds its nest by the guidance
of blind instinct or by the exercise of its mental
powers. On the one hand there are not a few able
naturalists who believe that a bird builds by instinct ;
that a young bird is born with the power to make a
nest typical of its species when the time comes for it
to exert its inherited power in this direction. This
opinion, we need scarcely say, is almost universally
shared by the popular lover of birds, although very
little thought, reasoning or experiment would be
required to show that it is as untenable as it is
unreasonable. On the other hand, a small but in-
creasing number of naturalists, at the head of which
we must in fairness place Alfred Russel Wallace, have
sought to show that the nest-building capabilities of
birds may be satisfactorily explained by the exertion
of a reasoning faculty.

Now Instinct, which we may define as Inherited
Habit, in a young bird is by no means sufficient to

10 BIRDS’ NESTS

explain the act of building a first nest. If such were
really the case, a young bird hatched in a nest of
some other species should be able when the time
arrives for it to require a nest to set to work and
build one on the exact model prevailing with its
particular species, and formed of similar materials to
those selected by its own kind. This must conse-
quently attribute to a bird an inborn inherited faculty
for performing a most complex action, and endows
that bird with powers that animals on a much higher
plane of intelligence are incapable of accomplishing ;
for not even man himself can build a shelter re-
sembling in its architecture that of his own tribe or
race, without some model to copy or the instructions
of his more experienced fellows. Then again, instinct
or inherited habit being a power transmitted from
parent to offspring in one unchanging order of
descent, must necessarily be a constant power in
the sense of never varying. We must assume it to
be a stationary power, as perfect and unerring in
the new-born chick as in the adult bird. Birds
hatched with this instinctive power to make a nest
without imitation, tuition, or experience must be able
to exert it successfully under any circumstances ;
whilst the ancestral type of nest must resemble in
every particular that which is constructed now, or
that will be constructed unnumbered centuries hence.
But unfortunately for this very attractive supposition,
it is not supported by a single particle of fact; whilst

INTRODUCTORY 11

the evidence against it (if at present somewhat
meagre) is quite sufficiently conclusive and un-
answerable. Like many other popular beliefs, it is
founded upon tradition and myth. The theory of an
unchanging instinct or unvarying inherited habit is
disproved by the fact that birds do very frequently
choose a site for their nest which differs in many
respects from the one usually selected by the species,
instances of which must be familiar to every observer;
and by persistence in it, if found to be advantageous
or in no way injurious an entirely new nesting habit
may result. Then again, although the fact is perhaps
not so generally known, many birds have not only
changed their habits of nesting, but in some cases
have completely altered the type of their nest. Such
a change is entirely at variance with any inherited
habit, and shows that birds are constantly exercising
their mental powers in adapting themselves to
changing conditions of life. Even in the British
Islands no less than five species can be named
which are known to have changed their mode of
nest-building considerably during a comparatively
short lapse of time. The House Martin there can be
little doubt before the dawn of civilisation in this area
attached its nest to maritime and inland cliffs. But
with the prevalence of a more elaborate form of
human architecture, the Martin, with an ever alert
sense of adaptiveness, acquired the habit of attaching
its nest to the most suitable portions of the new and

12 BIRDS’ NESTS

artificial sites. By this means, we may incidentally
state, the Martin has been enabled to extend its
range into new districts, and has doubtless increased
accordingly. The Swallow at a similarly remote period
must have bred in caves and hollow trees, just as so
many kindred species do at the present time in wild
uncivilised countries. Like the Martin it has not
failed to profit by the changed conditions afforded by
modern architecture, and nowadays attaches its nest
to rafters and other convenient ledges and projections
about houses, barns, and so forth. The Starling has
shown a very similar power of adaptiveness, whilst
the Jackdaw is perhaps quite as familiar and interest-
ing an instance. Lastly we may mention the House
Sparrow, a bird possessed of exceptional intelligence
and sagacity, and one which has not only changed its
nesting habits within historic time, but also its building
materials to an extent unequalled by any other known
bird. A still more extraordinary instance of changed
methods of nesting in this species in New Zealand (to
which country the bird has been introduced) has been
recorded in Nature (1888) by Mr G. L. Grant. He
writes as follows: “In many of the deep cuttings in
our roads, and on the cliffs upon our river banks,
where the formation is a light pumiceous sand, these
birds are in the habit of burrowing holes similar to
those of the Sand Martin. In some cases I have
found these burrows by measurement to be as much
as six feet in depth.” Instances are also on record

ABNORMAL NEST OF THE CHAFFINCH (FRINGILLA CCELEBS),

INTRODUCTORY 13

where species have completely changed their method
of nesting when threatened by some new danger.
The Penguins of Tristan d’Acunha have since the
introduction of pigs into the islands sought safety for
their eggs and young by changing the site of the nest
from an open to a covered one. Other instances of
avine intelligence as opposed to fixed inherited habit
are the departures from the general rule in the
method of reproduction, so remarkable in not a few
species. Herons will nest indiscriminately upon cliffs
or trees or upon the ground in fens and marshes.
Eagles in some countries nest upon trees and cliffs;
elsewhere on the ground. The Cormorant is as much
at home when nesting in a tree as upon a maritime
cliff or a low rocky reef; whilst the Moorhen and
some other ground-breeding birds have been known
to make their nests in trees, in districts subject to
sudden floods—another interesting proof of avine
intelligence and reasoning power.

Lastly, we have the most important evidence of all
against the theory of blind instinct or inherited habit
in the now absolutely proved fact that birds are
incapable of building a nest typical of their species
without the aid of imitation or experience. Although
we have recorded the facts in Nature and elsewhere,
they are sufficiently important and interesting to
be fully repeated in a work dealing exclusively. with
nests. The striking illustration here given is from
an actual photograph of a nest made by a pair of

14 BIRDS’ NESTS

Chaffinches that had been taken out to New Zealand.
They were young birds, and had had no experience
of nest-building in England before their departure ;
turned out in their new home to forage for them-
selves, and in every way in a state of nature. This
nest is built in a fork of a branch, and shows none
of that wonderful neatness of fabrication for which
the Chaffinch is so justly famed in England. The
cup of the nest is small and loosely put together,
and the walls of the structure are prolonged for
about eighteen inches, hanging down the side of the
supporting branch. Indeed it more resembles in its
structure the nests of the American Hangnests
(Icteridze), with the exception that the cavity con-
taining the eggs is situated on the top. Clearly
these New Zealand Chaffinches were at a loss for
a design when fabricating their nest. They had no
standard to work by, no nests of their own kind
to copy, no older birds to give them any instruction.
Possibly these Chaffinches imitated in some degree
the nest of a New Zealand species; or it may be
that the few resemblances this extraordinary struc-
ture bears to the typical nest of the Palzarctic
Chaffinch are the results of memory—the dim re-
membrance of the nest in which they were hatched,
but which had almost been effaced by novel sur-
roundings and changed conditions of life. There
can be little or no doubt that had these young
Chaffinches been hatched in an alien nest in England,

INTRODUCTORY 15

and never allowed to see a nest typical of their
species, or have any communication with old and
experienced birds, the results would have been still
more startling and strange.

There is just one more point we ought to mention
before finally dismissing the subject of Instinct. We
have already seen that the great range of variation
in site and materials amongst the individuals of the
same species is a most serious and fatal objection to
any theory of inherited habit. We have also the no
less important fact that the nests of birds of the
same species are by no means all of the same excel-
lence of construction. In other words, nests are
sometimes very indifferently made, some being much
more perfectly constructed than others. The sup-
porters of the theory of instinct assert that the first
nest a bird makes is as perfect as that which it will
construct after years of experience. This is a bold
assertion, but after all it is no more than the theory
inexorably demands, because if the habit is inherited
it must be as perfect at the beginning of a bird’s life
as at the end of it. Unfortunately, however, it is
quite at variance with the actual facts. My own
observations, as well as those of many other
naturalists, do not in the least tend to confirm
its accuracy. From a lifelong experience of birds’
nests in many localities, | can assert without hesi-
tation that at least five per cent. of the nests of any
one species selected for comparison are carelessly

16 BIRDS’ NESTS

made, and evidently the work of inexperienced birds.
This is all the more remarkable in species that make
fairly elaborate nests, being specially observable in
such nests as those of the Chaffinch, Goldfinch, Long-
tailed Titmouse, and Song Thrush. But when we
begin to quote examples we might name almost
every nest-building species, and we know that the
experience is a common one amongst naturalists and
collectors, That the fact is widely known is proved
by a note contributed to the Leisure Hour some years
ago by a correspondent at Petersfield. My readers
may possibly like to have the extract in full. “About
eight years ago a Blackbird built near a well in our
garden. It was evidently a novice at building, for
it put such a large lump of clay in the nest it could
not tread it down into the proper layer, though it
tried hard to do so for several days. At length it
built another nest about a hundred yards from the
first, and that it filled so full of leaves it could not
make a comfortable nest, and eventually relinquished
it. I do not know what the bird did in the end,
but a village boy who was working in the garden
told my children that the first nest was built
by a young bird who had not learnt to build
properly. I doubted that being true, and when the
bird made a second failure the boy again pointed out
that he was right as to its being a bird which had
never made a nest and had not gained experience;
and that he and other boys often found nests badly

INTRODUCTORY 17

built and forsaken, and that it was a well known thing
that young birds only built a proper nest after several
experiments. I doubt if old and experienced birds
ever show the inexperienced; I think it is a matter of
experience solely. It is a belief in this village that
Wrens build several nests a year which they do not
inhabit, and one of my sons says he has proved that
is so.” Another instance coming very recently within
my own experience may also be given. During the
past spring (1900) a pair of Song Thrushes took up
their quarters in my garden for nesting purposes, and
I had every opportunity of observing the preliminary
operations of the female bird which from a minute
examination within a few feet, aided by a field-glass,
had every appearance of being a bird of the previous
year, the buff spots on the wing coverts being very
large and bright. No less than three nests were
commenced in as many different sites (laurel bushes)
and abandoned after a mere heap of dry grass had
been colleeted, which I may say the hen bird was
most assiduous in gathering, especially in early morn-
ing and again at evening. A pair of older Thrushes
were also nesting in the same garden, and in their
case the nest was begun and finished without any
abortive attempts. The young bird eventually made
an indifferent nest with scarcely any mud or decayed
wood for lining, in which she laid three eggs which for
some reason unknown to me both birds deserted.
Again, there is more local variation in avine architec-
B

18 BIRDS’ NESTS

ture than is generally supposed. I have repeatedly
remarked during my birds’-nesting wanderings not
only over many parts of the British Islands, but in
foreign lands, that the nests of some of the commoner
species present a very marked diversity. For instance,
the Chaffinch, generally speaking, I have found builds
a much less finished nest in Devonshire than in other
parts of England, whilst on the other hand the finest
nests of the Long-tailed Titmouse I have ever seen were
from that county. I was also much struck with the
local differences of some of the birds’ nests 1 found
in Algeria, belonging to species that also breed in our
islands. Doubtless other observers have remarked
very similar facts.

Having thus discarded the theory of instinct or
inherited habit, the reader may justly ask what we
would offer as a substitute for it? We may here
repeat in substance the matter most closely bearing
upon this subject which is contained in a paper written
by us and read before a scientific society in Yorkshire
some years ago. Mr Wallace’s theory that birds do
not make their nests instinctively, but by imitating the
nests in which they were reared—that if they never
saw or were not brought up in a nest peculiar to their
species they would be unable to construct one for
themselves similar in position, form, and materials is,
after the absolute confirmation supplied by the instance
of the New Zealand Chaffinches just given, probably
the true solution of this interesting problem. The

INTRODUCTORY 19

question, therefore, arises, How do birds build their
nest, and especially their first nest. To credit birds
with instinct which because it seems so self-evident is
taken to be matter of fact, is to admit that they possess
intellectual powers infinitely superior to those of man;
whilst the evidence that can be gathered on the subject
all tends to show that their intellectual powers are of
precisely the same kind as man’s, but some of them,
of course, are much inferior in degree, whilst others
are unquestionably superior. Reason, comparatively
speaking, in birds can only be regarded as rudimen-
tary, though, as we have already seen, there is un-
doubted evidence of its existence. The faculties a
bird brings into play in nest building are probably
Imitation, to which we would assign the most im-
portant part, whilst the next most important faculty
of the mind is Memory, Reason and Hereditary Habit
playing the minor parts. All these powers are found
in man, but, with the exception of reason, in a much
less pronounced degree, especially in civilised man
in whom they have a tendency to become abortive
through disuse or non-employment. Therefore to
credit birds with such a marvellous power as blind
and infallible instinct is to place them on a vastly
higher plane of intelligence than man, nay more,
to allot to them a faculty which can only be
classed as superhuman. As we have already shown,
the evidence all tends to disprove the posses-
sion of such a power. Birds brought up in confine-

20 BIRDS’ NESTS

ment do not make a nest typical of their species, and
in most cases content themselves with forming the
merest rudiments of qa nest, merely heaping a lot of
material together upon which to lay their eggs; and
in some cases they do not make even this slight pro-
vision. This may be instinct or hereditary habit, the
blind impulse to make a nest; but without tuition, or
some standard to work by, it is a failure. The same
remarks apply to man; for with all his boasted
reason he is equally incapable of building a habita-
tion peculiar to his race, if he has not seen one or
been initiated in the secrets of its construction.
Savage man neither alters nor improves any more
than the birds, and each of his great races possesses
a peculiar style of architecture. The Arab and the
American Indian dwell in tents, the negro builds a
hut, and the bushman lives in caves, whilst the Malay
erects his house on posts. Now transfer an infant of
any one of these races of men, say, to a civilised land
like Europe, and is it conceivable that when grown
up to manhood he would set to work to build a tent,
a hut, or a house on posts according to the particular
race to which he belongs, instinctively and with no
instruction? If man is so helpless in such a case,
why should not a bird be the same? Why should
a creature infinitely below man in so many of its
intellectual attributes be so far in advance of him
in this particular respect? The same remarks apply
equally to a bird’s song and to the language of man-

INTRODUCTORY 21

kind—each, be it understood, have to be learnt. Now
a bird’s intellectual powers advance to maturity much
more quickly than in the human race. A young bird
three or four days old is capable of considerable
powers of memory and observation, and during the
time that elapses in which it is in the nest it has
ample opportunity of gaining an insight into the
architecture peculiar to its species. It sees the posi-
tion of the nest, it notes the materials, and when it
requires one for itself, is it so very extraordinary that,
profiting by such experience, it builds one on the
same plan? Again, birds often return to the place
of their birth the following season, and possibly see
the old home many times ere they want one for them-
selves. This aided by the strong hereditary impulse
to build a nest similar to the one in which they first
saw the light, and aptitude to work up certain special
materials, the collective and inherited or transmitted
result of many generations, aid them in their task.
Further, we know that some birds do not breed for
several seasons after they are hatched, and conse-
quently must often see older birds at work and profit
by the experience. Then, again, many birds breed in
companies, and the young may watch and imitate the
work of older and more experienced nest-builders
around them. Young birds may also often pair with
older and more experienced mates. The nests these
young birds build may, and often do vary from the
original type in many slight particulars; and it is by

22 BIRDS’ NESTS

these slight variations which, when beneficial, are
preserved by natural selection, that birds adapt
themselves to any changed conditions of life. I
have, for instance, several times remarked a com-
plete absence of feathers from the lining or interior
of the nest of the Common Wren; also considerable
variation in the lining of the nest of the Magpie; whilst
every observer must have remarked the great amount
of difference in the nests in a large rookery; whilst,
lastly, as a case in point there are many Puffins that
never collect any material at all, whilst others make
quite a warm nest of dry grass and feathers. I noted
similar variation in the nest arrangements of the
Fulmar Petrel, some individuals making quite an
elaborate nest, others contenting themselves with
little or no artificial resting-place for the egg.

As Dr Wallace most forcibly says, with birds as
with man, “when once a particular mode of building
has been adopted and has been confirmed by habit
and by hereditary custom, it will be long retained,
even when its utility has been lost through changed
conditions.” Now, we know that although many
habits have long since ceased to be of any service,
they are retained. We have, for instance, the case
of hole-building Ducks covering their eggs like their
congeners nesting in open situations; Jackdaws
making a most elaborate nest in a position where one
even of the slightest description is of small necessity ;
Swans adding to their nest (undoubtedly a habit origin-

INTRODUCTORY 23

ally acquired for its protection from sudden rises in
the water level or the wash of the waves), when that
nest may be made at some considerable distance trom
any water whatever. The direct results of a bird’s
reasoning faculties in respect to nest-making may be
seen in many directions. The wonderful way that so
many species copy surrounding objects, and thus by
assimilating their nest materials most cunningly con-
ceal their home, or the equally amazing forethought
of others that suspend their nests from tapering
branches often over water, or of others yet again (the
Tailor Birds) that knot the threads by which the leaf is
drawn into a cone in which the nest is built—may be
given as appropriate examples. An entire chapter
of the present book would not by any means exhaust
the specially prominent instances of a reasoning
power employed in avine architecture; to the birds’-
nesting student of birds it becomes manifest, wherever
his observations and searches may lead him.

It now becomes interesting to enquire what relation
exists between the tools or appliances that a bird may
have at its command and the quality or style of the
nest it is able to produce with them. Is the archi-
tectural skill subservient to the tools, or to what other
influences are the endless types of nests otherwise
due? Now I think we should be very careful in im-
puting the various apparent imperfections on the one
hand, or the amazing skill on the other, in the archi-
tectural qualities of birds’ nests to the appliances or

24 BIRDS’ NESTS

tools with which those nests are constructed. Dr
Wallace suggests that this may be due to the physical
structure of the builder; but I believe the many and
wide differences in the structure of nests may be
safely attributed to far more important and deeply
rooted influences. Instead, therefore, of viewing the
Swift’s rude nest, or the Ring Dove’s wicker cradle
as the inevitable results of imperfect natural appli-
ances, they should be considered as structures made
perfect for the transient purpose they serve, and com-
pletely in harmony with the requirements of their
builders. On the other hand, instead of regarding
the nest of the Chaffinch and the Wren merely as
structures the paragon of perfection and architec-
tural skill, the results of perfect natural tools, they
should be looked upon as nests, the only object their
beauty and perfection serves being a utilitarian one.
A bird’s beak and its legs and feet are the tools with
which its nest is made; perhaps we might also in-
clude the breast, for many species make considerable
use of that part of the body in working some of the
materials. Yet, as I hope shortly to demonstrate,
neither on the form, the length, nor any other peculi-
arity of these parts does the comparative beauty and
perfection of the nest depend. Now we all know that
the Wren has a finely-pointed bill and long legs. With
these tools she builds a well-made nest which seems
to owe its perfect form and well-woven walls to the
little creature’s nest-building appliances. But how

INTRODUCTORY 25

wrong we should be in such an assumption is proved
by the Chaffinch, which, with her comparatively
clumsy bill and short legs, also makes a nest equally
well woven, and even rivalling in its external appear-
ance the Wren’s globular dwelling! Then, again, the
Titmice, with their short bills and well-developed legs,
build nests in holes in trees and walls—structures so
loosely made that it is impossible to remove them
entire. But we know the Long-tailed Tit and its
several allies with similar tools (indeed, the bill is pro-
portionately shorter than in other Titmice) build nests
in the branches the paragon of beauty and well-woven
perfection. The Penduline Titmice and the Dipper
may be quoted as very similar instances. The Swift,
with its weak bill and abnormally short legs, seems
totally unable to make an elaborate nest ; but we know
that it seeks a hole for its purpose from other motives
than its seeming inability to make one, and, as is the
case with almost all hole-building species, irrespec-
tive of their natural tools or physical peculiarities, it
is poorly made. Some of the Swifts, however, make
more elaborate and remarkable nests, as we shall find
in a future chapter (conf. p. 104). Against the Swifts
we have the case of the Humming-birds, which, with
their almost functionless legs, build some of the most
beautiful cradles in all the wide and varied range of
avine life. Then, again, the Swallows and the House-
Martins possess similar tools to those of the Swifts,
yet they build well-made structures either fastened to

26 BIRDS’ NESTS

the eaves of buildings, or placed on beams and ledges
in sheds; whilst the Sand Martins of various
species, with their short, weak bills, burrow into
banks with as much ease as the Kingfishers, with
weak legs and feet (in many genera) construct their
subterranean abodes. The delicate Warblers (as for
instance, the Blackcap, the Whitethroat and the
Garden Warbler), all with appliances similar to those
of the Wren, make slight net-like nests; whilst the
Finches (as for instance, the Goldfinch, the Bullfinch,
the Redpole and the Chaffinch), with clumsy beaks and
somewhat short legs, weave nests well and elaborately
made, and most beautifully adapted to the purposes
they serve. The Hedge Accentor felts its nest
materials together most cunningly and skilfully;
whilst the Whitethroat makes a nest so flimsy that
the wender is it does not fall to pieces under the weight
of its nestling tenants. Some of the other Warblers,
with almost precisely the same appliances, succeed in
fabricating most elaborate and beautiful homes. We
allude to such nests as those of the Willow Wrens, the
Reed and Marsh Warblers, and the Tree Warblers.
Then the Jay and most birds of the Crow tribe, par-
ticularly the Magpie (its well-made and intricately-
woven nest is a masterpiece of avine architecture),
have powerful and somewhat clumsy bills and feet;
yet we know their nests can compare favourably with
those of any other class of birds. Many of the clumsy-
billed Gulls with webbed feet make well-made nests; as

INTRODUCTORY 27

also do certain Raptores, Herons, Coots, Moor-hens,
Grebes, Ducks and Swans—nests that exhibit the same
principles as those of the smaller birds, but, of course,
carried out on a much larger scale. Again, what
difference is there between the nest-building tools
of the Kestrel and the Sparrow-Hawk? Yet the latter
builds a fairly made nest, and the other never makes
a nest at all and rears its young in the deserted nests
of other birds, or on the ledges of cliffs, on no other
resting-place than the bare rocks or the refuse of its
food. In fact, in no other group of birds are the tools
of more equal merit and the architectural results so
various, for we have species most elaborate and clever
nest-builders, species that make nests on the trees and
the cliffs and on the bare ground, whilst the nests of
others are slight, often crudely made, and in not a few
cases are dispensed with altogether (as in many of the
Falcons), or some deserted home of another and very
different species is annexed for the purpose. The
Woodpeckers, the Kingfisher, the Starling, and some-
times the Jackdaw, well provided with the requisite
appliances for building an elaborate nest, rear their
young in structures poorly fabricated in the holes of
trees, rocks, banks, or buildings, or do not make a
nest at all. In some entire groups (as in the Parrots
and certain Picarian species) we find an utter absence
of architecture, notwithstanding the fact that the
birds seem in every way adapted for making elaborate
nests. From all these interesting facts I think that

28 BIRDS’ NESTS

we are perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion
that birds are in no way influenced by the appliances
they possess in building their nests. The whole
evidence is too contradictory to prevent us taking
any other view of the question. We have now seen
that birds are capable, quite irrespective of the form
of their bills and feet, of making elaborate nests of
matchless beauty, or poorly fabricated and very plain
in appearance respectively and according to circum-
stances; and I think, therefore, that we may safely
rest assured that the nest-building capabilities of birds
are not in any way subordinate to their natural ap-
pliances or tools for making their nests, but are
regulated by and subordinate to the various conditions
under which their young are produced, and especially
by the colour of the eggs.)

When we come to consider the question, Why so
many species of bird build a different kind or type of
nest (often great divergency is displayed by species
obviously very closely allied), we come to a matter
which is immeasurably more difficult of explanation.
We have not only to take into consideration the
general type of nest, but the infinite diversity of
materials. Dr Wallace seeks an explanation by
suggesting that birds select those materials which
are nearest to hand and easiest to obtain. But in
opposition to this we are confronted by the fact that

1 For information bearing upon this portion of the subject the
reader may be referred to my Story of the Birds and other works.

INTRODUCTORY 29

very differently constructed nests are very common
in the same localities, almost one might say, side
by side; whilst birds are frequently known to wander
far and wide, sometimes going long distances, in
quest of some special substance. That each type
of nest is admirably adapted to its special purpose is
unquestionable, although in numberless cases it would
be impossible to demonstrate the fact. This fact is
confirmed by another equally suggestive, and that is
the extraordinary amount of variation between the
nests of obviously closely allied species so frequently
remarked. I may give as examples the nest of the
Willow Wren, warmly lined with feathers, in com-
parison with that of the Wood Wren (another globular
structure) in which such lining is entirely absent; or
the still more curious variation in the lining of the
nest of the Song Thrush and that of the Redwing—or
yet again in that of some of the Buntings’ nests.
Perhaps we might say that the more uniform the
conditions of life of the species forming any group,
family or order may be, the more uniform will be the
nest type prevailing. This is specially illustrated by
the species composing such a large and natural order
as the Plovers and Sandpipers and their allies.
Throughout this large group the nests are remark-
ably uniform, the young being hatched in relatively
slight nests upon the ground. There are, of course,
one or two notable exceptions, but these only go to
prove the rule. The Herons form another group

30 BIRDS’ NESTS

remarkable for the uniformity of the nest type; the
Ducks another. With regard to the determining
factors in the selection of materials we are as yet
almost in complete ignorance. Many things have to
be taken into consideration, such as temperature of
breeding grounds, special methods of concealing the
nest, and so forth. In not a few cases abnormal
materials, often of a very curious character, have
been known to be selected. Indeed instances of this
are repeatedly coming within the experience even of
the most ordinary birds’-nester. I have not space to
quote many of these instances, much as I should
have liked to have done so, but one or two may be
mentioned in passing. The abnormal materials
worked into the nest of the House Sparrow, string,
paper, rags, the wire from lemonade bottles, to
mention but a few, is a very familiar instance. Then
in some parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire I have
known cotton and other waste worked into nests of
the Chaffinch and some other species. The late
J. G. Wood has recorded that at Soleure, in Switzer-
land, certain Wagtails made their nests out of broken
watch-springs. Another very remarkable case of
abnormal nest materials was that of the Spotted Fly-
catcher which made a nest (I believe) in Hyde Park,
London, largely from the remains of wax vestas
which smokers in “the Row” had thrown down;
whilst still more extraordinary was the nest of a
Dove-cote Pigeon placed on the roof of the Crystal

INTRODUCTORY 31

Palace, and made of hairpins and wire. The most
remarkable instances of abnormal sites occur amongst
species perhaps that make their nests in covered
situations; and in such cases we generally find that
the selected place somewhat closely resembles the
ordinary site in its most ‘salient characteristics. As
might naturally be expected, the most frequently
abnormal species are such homely birds as Robins,
Sparrows, Titmice, Wagtails, Flycatchers, and so on.
Discarded cans, crockery, flower-pots, saucepans,
kettles, and other domestic utensils left lying about
hedgerows or in tall grass and weeds seldom fail to
prove an irresistible attraction to the Robin; whilst
even such less likely receptacles as old hats, bags
hanging on walls, and battered baskets, are occa-
sionally chosen. In most cases the typical nest of
the species is made in these curious artificial sites.
The House Sparrow is another species apparently ever
on the alert to pop a nest into every niche at all
capable of holding it. A nest of this bird has been
known inside a large gong which was in constant use;
I have seen nests of this species amongst the orna-
mental ironwork of gasometers, behind advertisement
placards at railway stations, in the crevices amongst
statuary, and in signal posts. The partiality of Tit-
mice for pumps, boxes, water jugs, and other utensils
is well known, whilst the disused nest of some other
and larger bird is not unfrequently selected. Wag-
tails are little less familiar ; and the Spotted Flycatcher

32 BIRDS’ NESTS

by no means rarely selects some most unlikely spot
near or on man’s dwelling for a nesting place. There
is in the Natural History Museum at South Kensing-
ton a nest of this bird built in the hollow hoof of a
horse. At Chatsworth, in Derbyshire, several pairs
of Sand Martins used regularly to nest in the breech
of the small cannons placed near the hunting tower.
This abnormal selection of a nesting site is by no
means confined to birds in civilised countries, for the
Snow Bunting has been known to make its nest in the
breast of a dead Esquimaux, the Cape Wagtail’s nest
has been discovered in the skull of some unfortunate
Caffir; whilst another Wren (Troglodytes furvus) in-
habiting South America is said habitually to nest in
skulls, doubtless of cattle, so plentiful in the Argen-
tine; whilst the Hoopoe so frequently uses a hole in a
coffin in China for a nesting place that the Celestials
name it the “Coffin Bird.” Finally we may draw
attention to the fact that in not a few instances some
of the shyest birds most unaccountably build their
nests in the most unlikely and frequented spots, and
in some species the habit is a perfectly normal one,
as for instance in the Misselthrush and the Eider
Duck.

A few words now become necessary on the nest-
building sex. There is no universal rule in this
matter, but, broadly speaking, I should say the female
is the predominant architect. This is certainly the
case in not a few instances, where the nest is excep-

INTRODUCTORY 33

tionally elaborate. In many cases the male bird
conveys much of the material to the female, the latter
working it into the nest; in other cases both sexes
work at the structure with almost equal industry.
In not a few cases the male never comes near the
nest at all, and therefore can take no share in the
task of building it. This is especially the case with
polygamous birds and certain Ducks. On the other
hand there are species in which both sexes seem to
be equally gifted in the matter of architectural skill.
The male Little Grebe and Moorhen may often be
observed to build a complete nest unaided by its
mate; and popular supposition, at any rate, credits
the male Wren with amusing himself by nest-
building.

Perhaps it may be as well to devote the concluding
pages of the present chapter to a few remarks relat-
ing to the collecting and preserving of birds’ nests.
Por various reasons these objects, exceptionally inter-
esting as they may be, are somewhat unsatisfactory
ones to collect. Not only do they occupy a large
amount of space, but they are very fragile, and even
with the most careful usage are apt soon to lose their
shape. Then the materials of which they are com-
posed not only wither but their colours fade, and
thus a large portion of their beauty vanishes. Moths
and some other insects are also very troublesome,
and have ever to be carefully guarded against. These

c

34 BIRDS’ NESTS

are serious objections to the forming of a private
collection of birds’ nests especially, but to those
students who may be ambitious to do so, the following
hints may probably prove of some service. The
utility of forming a representative collection of nests
cannot be over-estimated. In accumulating such a
collection the student will not fail largely to increase
his knowledge of the ways and methods of the little
architects themselves; nor will he fail to realise much
that has been said already in the present chapter, or
to gather fresh evidence in support of the views here
propounded. In the first place I would advise the
collector to confine his efforts to the nests of the
smaller birds. Large nests are unmanageable. What-
ever may strike the observer as peculiar about them,
therefore, must be committed to the note-book, as
also full and detailed descriptions of all the larger
and rarer structures that he may meet with. I
would strongly recommend a collector of nests
with but limited space at his disposal to confine
his efforts to the various types, never duplicating
these in the various closely allied species except for
some special reason. All the smaller nests should
be removed with the supporting branches or twigs as
far as possible; nests in other situations must be
removed with great care and transferred to boxes
without delay. Nests in holes are the most difficult
to secure in a perfect condition, being often so very
loosely fabricated that removal entire is impossible.

INTRODUCTORY 35

It will be found a good plan to secure those loosely
made nests with a needle and thread, making stitches
here and there which will strengthen the nest, and
yet remain practically invisible. As soon as a nest is
taken a label should be attached. This need not
contain anything beyond a reference number to the
note-book, in which all particulars must be fully
entered at the time. Leave nothing to memory. In
the case of a nest that is under observation whilst
building, minute details can be recorded as the work
progresses; and let the student bear in mind that it
is this detailed observation that is specially required,
even relating to common and familiar species. Con-
cerning the nest-building habits of vast numbers of
exotic birds we know literally nothing, and in this
direction lies some of the most fascinating work open
to the caliologist. The facts to be observed are
almost endless: the peculiarities of the site, any
special display of intelligence on the part of the
architects, such as in its concealment or in the
materials selected, the building sex, the time of
building, the duration of the work, and the methods
of putting the materials together so far as can be
observed, may be given as a few of the more salient
ones. Nests should be taken for the collection as
soon as the eggs are deposited, for they are then at
their best. As nests are as much liable to the attacks
of insects as skins or furs it becomes absolutely
necessary to apply a preservative of some _ kind.

36 BIRDS’ NESTS

Many nests contain feathers, wool, and hair, and
these, of course, are more liable to the attacks of
insects than such nests as are made exclusively of
vegetable fibres. I have found a solution of corrosive
sublimate dissolved in alcohol or spirits of wine to be
the best preventative, the nests being dipped in this.
Care must be taken that the solution reaches every
part of such densely felted and warmly lined nests
as those of the Willow Wren and the Long-tailed
Titmouse, for instance, otherwise in a few months
they will be entirely destroyed. After the nests have
been thoroughly well soaked and preserved the ques-
tion of their final disposal in the collection has to be
solved. There are several excellent ways of keeping
nests. They should, however, never be crowded into
boxes, in fact never be permitted to touch each other,
or speedy ruin will come to them. Perhaps the best
method is to place each nest in a separate cardboard
box with a glass top. These boxes are then arranged
in drawers in the cabinet. Each nest may then be
easily inspected, and what is of more importance
each is kept absolutely isolated from its neighbour.
Another method, which I have seen adopted by col-
lectors both in India and China, is neatly to enclose
each nest with strong paper, leaving the top of the
nest exposed, the bag being fitted as closely as pos-
sible without interfering with the normal shape of the
nest. This method has economy of space to recom-
mend it, for with a little judicious selection and

INTRODUCTORY 37

management quite a large number of nests can be
got into a single glass-topped box. The encircling
paper also serves to keep the nests in their proper
shape. By this plan numbers of nests may be
arranged close together, which for a collector or
working naturalist is a matter of no small importance.
Of course the most elaborate method of preserving
nests is that adopted by the authorities at South
Kensington. Here the nests may be seen practically
in situ, but to display even a moderate number of
nest types on this principle would soon exhaust
even the space available at the Natural History
Museum.

CHAPTER II

NESTLESS BIRDS, ANNEXERS
AND PARASITES

CHAPTER II

NESTLESS BIRDS, ANNEXERS AND
PARASITES

Conditions of a nestless state—Occasional lapses in the Nest-building Habit—
Nestless Birds—Tropic Birds and Vultures—Ringed Plover—Coursers and
Pratincoles—Stone-Curlew—Gulls and Terns—Auks—Nestless Petrels—Goat-
suckers—Origin of the Nestless Habit—Number of eggs laid by nestless species
—Annexing Birds—Birds of Prey and Owls—The Kestrel—The Hobby—Honey
Buzzard—Orange-Legged Hobby—lIceland Jer Falcon—The annexing habit
not always universal in the same species—Egyptian Vulture—Turkey Vulture—
Cooper's Hawk—Tawny Owl—Long-Eared Owl—Tengmalm’s Owl—Hawk
Owl—Eagle Owl—American Barred Owl—Saw-whet Owl—Green Sandpiper—
Wood Sandpiper—Swallows—Birds building in nests of other species—Great
Titmouse—House Sparrow—Purple Grackle—Spanish Sparrow in nest of
Stork—Return of Birds to old Nests—Parasitic Birds—Origin of the habit of
Parasitism—Coloration of Eggs of Parasitic Birds—Cow-Bird—Birds laying
astray—Birds evicted by other species—Benevolent characteristics in Birds—
Origin of Parasitism through the young.

NoTWITHSTANDING the fact that birds are so inti-
mately associated with nests, there are a good many
species that never make a nest at all, or that profit by
the architectural exertions of more industrious birds,
whilst some few there are that shirk all parental
duties, make no nest, and leave all care of their
young to others. The absence of any nest-building
inclination or propensity is by no means an indication
of a low stage of development in birds, or of any
lack of intelligence, but is most probably entirely
due to the conditions under which their eggs are
hatched and their young brought to maturity.
4r

42 BIRDS’ NESTS

Indeed, from a human point of view, we might
justly ascribe the habit of annexing some ready-
made nest, or that of relegating all responsibility of
the offspring to foster parents, to an exceptional
intelligence rather than to any want of it. Now, it
is a remarkable and interesting fact, and one going
far to prove the truth of the contention that nests
are purely and simply utilitarian structures, sub-
servient in every respect to the conditions under
which the young are produced, that we find nestless
species in so many of the great groups into which
birds are divided by systematists. Not only are
some of the most archaic avine forms devoid of any
nest-building propensity, but some of the species in
the more highly specialised groups are in an exactly
similar condition, whilst in not a few instances we
have nest-building as well as nestless species belong-
ing to the same family or even genus. In some
cases the general habits of the birds are almost the
same, yet some small divergence in the way the
young are produced determines whether there shall
be a nest or not. By common consent the Ratitz
(comprising the Rheas, Cassowaries, Emus, Kiwis and
Ostriches) is regarded as the most archaic order of
surviving birds, and yet none of the members of it
can be said to be nestless, as will be shown in the
following chapter. It is also a curious fact that in
some nest-building species individuals are occasionally
known to forego the habit and to omit making any

THE RINGED PLOVER AND EGGS.

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS 43

provision for incubation. This I have found especially
frequent in the Pulmar Petrel, the Puffin, some of the
Gulls and the Plovers. Amongst the species that are
absolutely non-nest-building we may mention the
Tropic Birds, comprising the family Phzthontide:
Some of the Vultures are practically nestless. The
American Black Vulture (Catharista atrata) is said
never to make the slightest attempt at a nest, not
even scraping a hollow, laying its eggs on the ground
in cane brakes, under bushes or logs, or even in more
exposed situations still. Then some of the birds in
the important group Charadriiformes are nestless, a
fact which is all the more remarkable when we bear
in mind that others in the same assemblage of
species are very fair if not actually elaborate nest-
builders, and one that incontestably proves my
assertion that the conditions under which the eggs
are incubated determine whether artificial provision
be made for them or not. The Ringed Plovers, for
example, can by no stretch of imagination be regarded
as nest-builders. They deposit their eggs on the
bare sands and shingles, often with not even the
semblance of a hollow to contain them. A moment’s
reflection and we find that a nest in such a bare and
open situation would be an absolute danger, and
serve no useful purpose. It would be readily seen,
and the eggs can be incubated with greater safety
and absolute certainty without a nest of any kind.
The Coursers and Pratincoles both breed upon open .

44 BIRDS’ NESTS

ground, and in each family the species make no
actual nest, but incubate their eggs on the deserts
and marshes where such a structure would only
court discovery. Incidentally I may also mention
that in a great many instances the Lapwing makes no
nest whatever, depositing its eggs upon the bare
pastures; but at other times it will be found to
make a slight but perfect receptacle for its spotted
treasures, the peculiarities of the ground apparently
being the sole determining influence. If a nest would
be conspicuous it is omitted, if the nature of the
ground admits of such a structure it is generally
made. The Stone Curlew furnishes yet another
instance of a nestless species from this order of
birds, and its peculiar method of nidification fully
warrants this omission from its domestic arrange-
ments. As most readers may know, it dwells upon
open heaths and deposits its eggs usually on some
stone-strewn patch of ground where their tints closely
harmonise with surrounding objects, and where a
nest would only assist in betraying their whereabouts
to enemies. Some of the Gulls often refrain from
making any nest whatever; whilst Terns of many
species are absolutely nestless—the Lesser Tern for
example—whilst others make more or less finished
homes—the Common Tern for instance—the peculiari-
ties of the site apparently being the determining factor.
Thus the Lesser Tern delights to breed on shingly
beaches where a nest would be decidedly conspicuous,

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS 45

whilst the Common Tern prefers places where herbage
is abundant and where a nest can be hidden amongst
it. No birds, however, are more absolutely nestless
than the Auks, of which the Guillemot and the Razor-
bill are typical species. These birds lay their eggs
upon the bare rocks, either exposed to the light of day
on the ledges or flat table-like summits, or concealed
from view in nooks and crevices. Singularly enough
the Puffins—the nearest surviving relations of the
Auks—are elaborate nest-makers, spending much time
in excavating burrows at the end of which a rude
bed is formed. Other nestless birds are to be found
amongst the Petrels, although here again we have a
group of birds in which some make more or less
elaborate provision for their eggs. Bulwer’s Petrel
and Wilson’s Petrel, for example, make no nest
whatever, laying their single egg under rocks and
stones, whilst the Fork-tailed Petrel and the Shear-
water incubate their egg in burrows upon a nest of
grass and twigs and leaves, etc. Lastly we have the
Goatsuckers, which make no provision for their eggs,
but lay them and incubate them upon the bare
ground. It seems difficult at present to account for
the nestless condition of the Nightjar, more especially
when we bear in mind the bird’s singular attachment
to certain spots, often returning to them year by year
and depositing the eggs in exactly the same place.
It is interesting to speculate how these species—
representatives being found in so many widely diver-

46 BIRDS’ NESTS

gent groups—became nestless. That it is an excep-
tion to the general habit of birds is unquestionable—
a deviation from almost universal custom, rather
than a retention of an archaic trait. Possibly the
habit may have arisen through individuals accidentally
depositing their eggs on the ground before any nest
had been prepared for them, just as we often find
nest-building species do in our own time. I have
known the Starling especially to drop its eggs very
frequently about the fields, the Song-Thrush and
Blackbird, Bunting and Robin occasionally, but never
to attempt to incubate them, however, in such a novel
position. It is somewhat significant, too, that the
most thorough nestless species lay but a very small
number of eggs for a sitting—from one to two or
three. If the eggs were as readily hatched under
nestless conditions, and possibly received additional
safety by the absence of a perhaps conspicuous nest,
then we can understand how natural selection would
preserve such new conditions of incubation and the
habit consequently have a tendency to increase.
From the absolutely nestless birds we now pass
to a consideration of those species which we have
designated “ Annexers”’; that is to say, birds that do
not under any circumstances make a nest for them-
selves, but select the disused or unoccupied home of
some other species in which to lay their eggs and
bring up their young. So far as is known, this
singular habit, with few exceptions, occurs only in

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS 47

two groups, the Birds of Prey and the Owls, and of
course it is by no means a universal one in these.
Here again we are confronted by widely differing
methods of nidification amongst what are obviously
closely allied birds. We find species failing to make
any provision of their own for their eggs, notwith-
standing the fact that so far as we can judge they
are just as well able to build a nest as their more
thoughtful or industrious relations. One or two
instances selected from well-known species must here
suffice to illustrate this peculiar trait. One of the
most familiar of these is the Kestrel. It has been
stated by more than one writer that this pretty little
Hawk occasionally makes its own nest, but this I do
not for one moment believe. If it cannot find a
suitable deserted tenement it lays its eggs upon the
bare earth or rock in some crevice of the cliffs, or
even in a hole in a building or a tree trunk. Indeed
there can be no doubt that many pairs make such a
selection from choice and not from necessity. In
such a spot no nest is ever constructed, but as the
breeding season progresses numbers of pellets or
castings accumulate in the place and often surround
the eggs. But it is as an annexing species that we
are now considering the Kestrel. The bird generally
selects the deserted home of a Crow, a Magpie, or a
Sparrow Hawk, less frequently the old nest of a Ring
Dove or even the drey of a squirrel. The Hobby is
another annexing species. Unfortunately the British

48 BIRDS’ NESTS

naturalist rarely meets with this Falcon nowadays, and
the time may come when it will cease to breed within
our limits at all. The old nest of a Crow, a Magpie
or a Ring Dove appears to be the favourite selection,
and here without alteration of any kind the eggs are
incubated. Another British species (although we
regret that it will soon no longer be one, if indeed it
has not already disappeared) is the Honey Buzzard.
This handsome bird selects the deserted home of a
Crow, Magpie, Buzzard, or Kite; but in this case the
old abode is furbished up a little by the addition of a
lining of green leaves, which is renewed from time
to time as incubation progresses. The Orange-legged
Hobby, perhaps equally well known as the Red-legged
Falcon, is yet another annexer, bringing up its young
in the old nest of a Crow, a Magpie, or a Rook, when
in the latter numbers of pairs sometimes breeding in
company. The Iceland Jer Falcon is also said never
to make a nest, but sometimes to select a disused
Raven’s abode for its purpose; more frequently
perhaps depositing its eggs on the bare ground on a
ledge of the cliffs. Incidentally I may state that the
habit of annexing is not universal in some species.
The Egyptian Vulture, for instance, sometimes
builds a nest for itself, and sometimes selects
the deserted home of a Short-toed Eagle, a
Bearded Vulture, or a Raven—a_ fact which
seems to suggest that the habit of annex-
ing is gradually being acquired. Similarly the

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS 49

Turkey Vulture (an American species) has been
known to make use of an old nest of a Heron or a
Hawk. Again, Cooper’s Hawk (another New World
Species) sometimes makes a nest for itself, but
more generally selects the deserted home of a Crow,
a Hawk, or a squirrel. The Short-tailed Hawk (the
Buteo brachyurus of Vieillot) is another instance.
Among the Owls we have many instances of this
annexing habit. In a great many cases these birds
rear their young in their usual day retreat or
roosting place, making little or no nest. This
retreat may sometimes be the deserted nest of
another bird; possibly the situation is chosen for
the purpose of incubation only. Thus the Tawny
Owl not unfrequently breeds in an old nest of a
Hawk, Magpie, or Crow; the Long-eared Owl almost
invariably selects a deserted nest of a Magpie, Crow,
Ring Dove, or Heron; Tengmalm’s Owl as frequently
annexes the nest hole made by a Black Woodpecker,
as also does the Hawk Owl; whilst the Eagle Owl
takes possession of the old home of an Eagle or
some other large bird. The American Barred Owl
similarly secures the old nest of a Crow or Hawk
for its procreant cradle; whilst its relation, the Saw-
whet Owl of the same region, chooses a squirrel’s
drey or more frequently the deserted hole of a
Woodpecker, as also does the Screech Owl in the
same locality. A very remarkable exception of an
annexing species occurring in a group which follows
D

50 BIRDS’ NESTS

the normal conditions of nidification is furnished by
the Green Sandpiper. This species, deserting the
ground upon which its congeners habitually breed,
selects the old nest of a Thrush, a Jay, a Ring Dove,
or a Crow, in which to deposit its four eggs. Its
close ally, the Wood Sandpiper, has also been
recently detected breeding in similar situations, a
fact which seems to suggest not only that the bird is
changing its method of nesting, but also the manner in
which the habit may have arisen in such species where
it now more generally prevails. This is yet another
instance of the intelligence—reason—displayed by
birds in the matter of nesting, as opposed to the
theory of an unchanging and unvarying instinct.
Some of the Swallows (Tachycincta) make their nests
in the deserted holes or nests of other birds.

Before leaving this particular branch of the sub-
ject, it may be as well to refer to the peculiar habit
which some birds possess of making their nests
inside the structures belonging to other species.
Some of these are what may facetiously be termed
the guests of larger birds. The Great Titmouse
(Parus major), for instance, not unfrequently makes
a domed nest in the interior of the disused abode
of a Crow or a Magpie; whilst I have known it to
build its nest amongst the sticks in the foundation of
a Rook’s nest, whilst the latter was occupied. The
House Sparrow will also sometimes select a similar
situation; whilst in North America both this species

EGGS OF GREEN SANDPIPER IN OLD NEST OF FIELDFARE,.

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS | 51

and the Purple Grackle have been known to build
amongst the sticks of an Osprey’s nest. In Asia
Minor colonies of Spanish Sparrows (Passer salicicola)
have been observed in Storks’ nests, almost every
interstice in the great stick-built nest of the Stork
containing one of the Sparrows, some fifty nests of
the latter being accommodated amongst the material
of each one of the former. It seems fitting here
also to allude to the fact that some birds are in
the habit of returning to the old nest season by
season, and using it annually for purposes of re-
production. No more familiar instances could be
given than those of the Rook, the Starling, and the
House Sparrow. Here, again, we are confronted by
another of those as yet inexplicable facts relating
to the science of nests. Why, we may naturally
ask, do some species retain an unquenchable love
and affection for the old nest, returning to it each
season of reproduction, patching, repairing, and
adding to the structure as the time for its use
comes round anew, whilst the majority of others
desert it for ever as soon as it has served its
purpose? 1 may, however, state that the species
that so return are mostly gregarious during the
season of reproduction; whilst the fact must not
be overlooked that the majority of birds show a
considerable amount of affection for the locality in
which they rear their young. Every observer of
birds must have had some experience of the manner

52 BIRDS’ NESTS

in which certain individuals of a species will return
each season, not only to the same locality, but in
many cases to the same precise spot for nesting
duties. Birds that pair for life appear to have this
nostalgic impulse very highly developed, and this
applies not only to sedentary species but to migra-
tory ones as well. The Magpie, for instance, is no
more deeply attached to its old nest, that it visits
from time to time all the year round, than is the
House Martin to its mud-built cradle beneath the
eaves, to which it unerringly returns after a journey
of many thousands of miles and a continuous absence
of seven months. Both these species pair for life,
and the nest seems to be a home centre, a trysting
place of an irresistibly attractive kind.

We now pass to the consideration of another class
of non-nest-building birds, what we have ventured to
call “ parasites.” These we can scarcely describe as
nestless birds, for their young are hatched and reared
in nests—not the discarded homes of other species—
the eggs being surreptitiously inserted during the
absence of the rightful owners, the latter incubating
them and rearing the chicks with every care. The
Cuckoo, of course, is the most familiar instance to
British naturalists of these bird parasites, but the
curious habit is by no means confined to that species,
not only prevailing widely in the family to which “the
Messenger of spring” belongs, but in another group
as well. There can be little doubt that the parasitic

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS _ 53

habit is, comparatively speaking, a recent one, as it
only prevails in one or two families of highly specialised
birds. Whether the habit will become more widely
prevalent it is, of course, impossible to say. Should
birds, however, follow human example in the growing
tendency to shirk the responsibilities of offspring, then
we may safely say that such will be the case. The
manner in which this very exceptional habit amongst
birds has arisen is a very fascinating question for
ornithologists to solve, and notwithstanding the many
plausible explanations of the phenomenon that have
been suggested, it is still largely enshrouded in
mystery. We can of course presume that parasitism
may be the retained habit of some ancestral form of
the species practising it at the present time, and
acquired during conditions of existence of which we
can have no possible conception nowadays. We can
also suggest in its explanation that the habit may
have prevailed more widely during earlier epochs of
avine existence. The fact that every detail and
condition of the habit is so marvellously perfect
seems to suggest its long continued duration. The
choice of nest is not the least important condition of
success, for a species must be selected capable of
bringing the alien young bird to maturity. Then the
coloration of the eggs of parasitic birds is another
important factor, this varying much or little according
to the number of species selected by the parasites
and the degree of variation reached by their eggs.

54 BIRDS’ NESTS

Possibly the Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) has
the widest range of selection in this respect, a fact
which is confirmed by the exceptional amount of
variation presented by its eggs. Other species of
Cuckoos in the same genus ranging over a wide
expanse of country tenanted by vast numbers of
suitable foster parents may exhibit a similarly large
amount of variation in the coloration of their eggs,
but unfortunately our information is extremely
scanty. On the other hand such parasitic species
as the Great Spotted Cuckoo (Coccyzus glandarius),
which confines its unwelcome attentions practically
to birds of the Crow tribe dwelling in the localities it
frequents, lays eggs remarkably uniform in tint, and
somewhat resembling those of the Magpie. Outside the
Cuckoo family the only bird parasites at present known
to exist are certain species of American Icteride, of
which the Cowbird (Molobrus pecoris) is by far the best
known (conf. p. 58). Whether the invading Cuckoo
breaks any or all of the eggs of the rightful owner of
the nest when paying her clandestine visits seems not
to be definitely known; but with regard to the Cow-
bird and its allies Mr Hudson definitely states con-
cerning the South American species that both male
and female do actually destroy many of the eggs
of their dupes. Another very remarkable fact is that
one species of South American Cowbird (Molobrus
rufaxillaris) is actually parasitic upon another species
(M. badius), the latter making its own nest.

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS — 55

But to return to the question of the origin of this
parasitic habit. Parasitism in birds may have had its
origin either through the parent or the offspring. At
the present day instances are by no means rare not
only of birds laying an odd egg in the nest of some
other, and it may be very distantly related species,
but of birds taking possession of a nest and driving
away the rightful owners often when it contained eggs
which have been hatched in due course with those
of the invader. Partridge eggs, for instance, are
frequently found in the nest of the Pheasant, whilst
those of the latter are perhaps as commonly dis-
covered in the home of the Partridge. The eggs of
Gulls and Eider Ducks have also been found in each
other’s nests; whilst Stevenson records that he had
frequently known Moorhen’s eggs to be laid in the
nests of Coots. A Pochard’s egg has been found in
the nest of a Tufted Duck; and even more curious
still a Moorhen has been known to lay an egg
in the unfinished nest of a Blackbird! Starlings
are known frequently to turn Woodpeckers out of
their nesting holes; House Sparrows still more com-
monly take possession of nests of the Martin. Many
similar instances might be given, although it will be
remarked that perhaps the majority of them refer
to hole-building or domed-nest-building species. We
can now understand how the accidental dropping of
an egg into an alien nest might gradually become a
fixed habit, natural selection having a tendency to

56 BIRDS’ NESTS

preserve and extend the practice of such an action
if beneficial, or at least not harmful, to the species
concerned. We can also understand how a species
might derive sufficient benefit from being ousted from
its home by some invading form, being thus relieved
of the duties of incubation and rearing a brood, that
in time, by a similar process of selection, it might
entirely relinquish all inclination to perform them.
On the other hand, parasitism may have arisen
through the actions of young birds in the following
manner. In the first place we have the very interest-
ing and significant fact that some at anyrate of these
bird parasites are very voracious feeders. Then we
have the equally well-known fact that certain species
especially show a strong desire to feed any deserted
or helpless nestling that may chance to come in their
way—the drooping, fluttering wings, open mouth, and
pleading notes of such outcasts apparently exciting
parental instincts in the older birds, and irresistibly
prompting such birds to respond to them. Many
instances might be given of birds adopting and feed-
ing the deserted or orphaned and helpless young of
other species, and the significant result of such a
combination of facts is at once palpable. There
would also probably be a synchronous development
of a strong tendency in the young birds brought up
under such circumstances to consort with the species
that had befriended them, and we can then under-
stand the origin of the habit of seeking the nests of

NESTLESS BIRDS AND ANNEXERS 57

their foster parents and depositing their own eggs in
them. Of course the parents of these deserted young
birds might simultaneously assist in the development
of the parasitic habit; for it is quite conceivable that
with a brood of voracious young to provide for, they
might readily desert some or even all of them, and
more especially if they chanced to observe the readi-
ness of other species to share their labours. So in
both directions would the domestic instinct or habit
gradually become weaker and finally disappear, whilst
parasitism would as surely take its place. By tracing
the origin of this avine parasitism through the young
rather than through the adult, we are better able
to understand that marvellous perfection of choice of
foster parent now exhibited by all parasitic birds, the
species selected being those that are in every way
best adapted to secure its ultimate success. We
believe that Dr Baldamus (a naturalist who has
studied this habit of the Cuckoo perhaps more
thoroughly than any other) attributes parasitism to
the fact that the Cuckoo produces its eggs at such
long intervals that one general incubation would be
impossible; but on the other hand we must take into
consideration that other species of non-parasitic birds
lay at intervals, and begin to sit as soon as the first
egg is produced; whilst it is much more probable
to assume that intermittent egg-production in the
cuckoo is a direct result of the bird’s parasitic habits.
Incidentally I may mention that a most interesting

58 BIRDS’ NESTS

memoir on the Cowbirds, especially in relation to
their parasitic habits, has been compiled by the late
Major Bendire (conf. Report; U.S. National Museum,
1893, pp. 586-624, Pls. 1-3). A list of no fewer than
ninety species is given, in which eggs of the Cowbird
have been discovered.

CHAPTER III

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS

59

CHAPTER III

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS

Apparent development of nest-building art—Illustrated by nest of Bullfinch
—By nests of Crows—By nests of ‘‘ Willow Wrens”—Importance of nesting
conditions—The most skilful nest-builders—Crude nest-forms of Ratitz Birds
—Nidification of the Ostrich—Of the Falcons—Of certain Owls—Of the
Coraciiformes—Of the Psittaciformes— Of the Cuculiformes— Of certain
Cuckoos—Of the Columbiformes—Peculiarity in nests of Pigeons—Of certain
Tyrant Birds—Of the Pediophli or Sand Grouse—Of the Game Birds or Galli-
formes—Similarity of architecture in this order—Nests of the Charadriiformes
—Of the Bustards—Of the Oyster-catchers—Of the Stilts—Of the Woodcocks—
Of the Jacanas—Of the Crab Plover—Crude nest-forms of the Divers—Of the
Penguins—Of the Procellariiformes—Of the Lariformes—Nests of the Noddy
Tern—Of the Skuas—Of the typical Gulls—Of the Black-headed Gull—Of the
Ducks aud allied Birds—Of the Mergansers—Uses of down in these nests—
Number of crude nest-builders—The state of the young when hatched.

As we pointed out in the previous chapter, a nestless
state must not in any way be taken as an indication
of any lack of intelligence, so may we also here insist
that the crudest nest-builders are not necessarily
wanting in that special quality of mental development.
Neither must we assume that every type of nest, from
the crudest to the most elaborate structure, repre-
sents, or is any indication of a gradual development
of mental powers applied to avine architecture. Nests,
we may again assert, are purely and simply utilitarian
structures, and their plan and degree of elaborateness

are controlled by the special conditions under which
6r

62 BIRDS’ NESTS

the young of each species are brought to maturity.
This fact must never be neglected by the student of
birds’ nests, for it is one of the fundamental principles
upon which the science of caliology is based. It is
true, if we analyse the construction of certain nests,
we are confronted by facts that seem to suggest a
gradual development from a crude and simple to an
elaborate model; but after a prolonged study of the
subject, extending over many years, I am convinced
that such is not really the case. For instance, we
might endeavour to build up a theory of the gradual
evolution of a Nest in this manner. In the first place,
take for the sake of our argument the nest of a Bull-
finch. In this structure we find a recapitulation of
various cruder nest types before the elaborate and
beautiful home is completed. We have the few
twigs as a foundation, which represent the full and
complete nest of such a simple architect as a Pigeon,
for instance; and then we may gradually trace the
more and more elaborate nest through each succes-
sive stage of its construction from the roots and bits
of dry grass until we reach the final lining of hair,
wool and feathers, the whole combined representing
the perfect model of a nest of this particular type.
So again we might illustrate the theory of nest evolu-
tion by a comparative study of the nests of various
species of Crows. First, as the crudest type, we have
the nest of such a species as the Chough and the
Jackdaw built in holes and fissures, the materials

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 63

often being scanty and generally arranged in a loose
and slovenly manner. The Crows and Rooks, although
employing much the same materials, are more care-
ful and elaborate builders; whilst the Jay is an even
better architect, its nest being to some extent a re-
capitulation of and improvement on those of the species
already instanced. Last and most perfect nest-builder
of all we have the Magpie. The nest of this bird is a
masterpiece of its special type, an example of avine
intelligence and skill that it would be hard to beat,
embodying all the principles of those of its kindred,
from the mere platform of sticks to the neatly-lined
structure, and finally crowned with a roof of basket-
work that renders it almost impregnable. Lastly, we
may mention the group of Warblers, known more
familiarly as ‘ Willow Wrens,” as furnishing instances
of progressive types of nest-building. So far as is
known, these birds all build nests of a very similar
type, more or less domed, but the degree of finish
varies considerably. Some of the species build nests
of dry grass with little or no lining; others add a little
hair (as in the Wood Wren), whilst the most elaborate
architects finish off theirs with a warm and plentiful
bed of feathers, as for instance the Willow Wren and
the Chiffchaff. Now, looked at from one point of view,
all this gradation of nest in certain groups (and many
other instances might have been given) seems to
suggest a gradual development of nest-building capa-
bilities—improvements upon certain primitive types,

64 BIRDS’ NESTS

until a more complicated and perfect system of archi-
tecture has been reached. It requires, however, but a
small amount of reasoning to demonstrate the fallacy
of such a supposition, or an even less amount of
observation in the haunts of birds where nests can
be studied in relation to the habits and requirements
of their builders. The crude nest of the Ring Dove is
as admirably suited for the purpose it serves as is that
of the Chaffinch or the Long-tailed Titmouse. The
loosely-formed nest of the Jackdaw and the Chough
answers the purpose for which they are intended just
as effectually as the more elaborate and highly-
finished nests of the Jay or the Magpie; whilst we
may equally rest assured that the hair-lined home of
the Wood Wren is just as admirably suited to the
requirements of that species as the feather-carpeted
abodes of the Willow Wren and the Chiffchaff are to
the special conditions of existence of those species.
Nesting conditions are too vitally important to the
species to be in any way imperfect. It is just as
vitally essential for the Tern or the Nightjar to hatch
their eggs nestless on the bare ground as for the
Magpie to produce its young in an elaborate roofed-in
nest, the procreant cradle (or even the want of it)
harmonising in every way with the special conditions
of reproduction. Our study in the present chapter of
the crudest forms of nests must not therefore in any
sense be taken as indicative of a low nest-building
capacity on the part of the birds that make them.

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 65

We must also bear in mind that from a caliological
point of view these crude nests are in a certain sense
as interesting and important as those of more elaborate
structure. On the other hand, it must, however, be
conceded that the highest degree of architectural skill
is reached in a group of birds universally acknow-
ledged by systematic ornithologists to be the most
specialised. These birds are the Passeres, and as we
shall eventually learn in our general review of birds’
nests, it is in this order, composed of the most highly
specialised of avine forms, that we find the greatest
intelligence and skill brought into play in forming the
procreant cradle.

Let us now return more particularly to the subject
of the present chapter—the crudest forms of nest.
Amongst these we may first glance at the primitive
homes made by what are almost by common consent
considered to be the most archaic of all existing
birds and classed as the Ratite. This division is
composed entirely of flightless birds, and includes
the Rheas, Cassowaries and Emus, the Kiwis and
the Ostriches. The nests of all these birds are of
the crudest, and consist of hollows excavated in the
ground (or, in the case of the Kiwis, amongst the roots
of a tree fern), and almost entirely devoid of lining.
In these rude hollows the females deposit their eggs,
Both male and female Ostriches are said to prepare
the crude “nest.” According to Mr Crawston
(Ostrich Farming in California), the male bird rests

E

66 BIRDS’ NESTS

his breast-bone on the ground and kicks the sand
behind. When one side is sufficiently deep he turns
round and repeats the same operation, until a round
hole about three feet in diameter and one foot deep
is formed. According to this writer the eggs are
covered with sand to protect them from the fierce
rays of the sun, but there can be no doubt that many
eggs are incubated in part by solar warmth. It has
been frequently stated that the male bird alone in
this group (Ratite) incubates the eggs, but this is
denied by Mr Crawston, who asserts that the male
and female ostrich share the labour, the male sitting
during the evening and night. It should be remarked,
however, that equally trustworthy observers maintain
that incubation is performed by the males alone.
Then again the Tinamous (Crypturi), a Neotropical
group, are very crude nest-builders, their procreant
cradle consisting of a mere hollow scraped in the
ground, in which a few feathers are strewn as likely
as not by accident rather than by design. Many of
the Falcons must also be classed as builders of the
crudest forms of nest. The Jer Falcon (in its seve-
ral representative or geographical forms), the most
typical of the group, prepares no more than a mere
hollow on the ledges of the cliffs in which to deposit
her eggs. The Peregrine is equally unsolicitous; in
fact, all the world over the typical Falcons are satis-
fied with the crudest provision for their eggs. Some
of the smaller species, however, either annex the

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 67

home of another bird, as we have already seen, or, as
is the case with the Merlin, for example, build a
slightly more elaborate nest. This latter bird sur-
rounds the usual hollow with a ring of twigs. It is
worthy of remark that nearly without exception the
other groups (such as Vultures, Eagles, Hawks,
Buzzards, Kites, etc.) contain species that build
more or less elaborate nests, some of them, be it
remarked, of enormous size and strength. Then,
again, the nests of many of the Owls are crude in
the extreme. As we have already pointed out, not
a few species in this group are either entirely nest-
less, or annex the deserted homes of other birds. In
the majority of the remaining instances, the nest is
crude in the extreme, a mere hollow lined with food
refuse. Even such species as the Snowy Owl that
breed in the open make no elaborate provision for
their eggs, laying them in hollows, trampled down
in the soil or moss on the ledges of cliffs, or on some
convenient hillock upon the wide expanse of tundra.
The great Eagle Owls make a very similar provision
if they do not annex the deserted nest of some other
bird. In fact, throughout the entire group of Owls
(numbering, broadly speaking, about two hundred
species), we find the same conditions prevailing—all
being either nestless, annexers, or builders of some
of the very crudest forms of nest. Not only do
these remarks apply to the Owls (Striges), but they
are equally appropriate to the species in several

68 BIRDS’ NESTS

other sub-orders and families in the extensive order
of birds scientifically termed Coraciiformes. We have,
for instance, already seen that the Goatsuckers are
nestless; others, the Owlet Nightjars of Australia
(Gigotheles) lay their eggs in holes in trees; whilst
another family of birds in the same sub-order Capri-
mulgi, the Frogmouths, Podargide, make a crude
flat nest of sticks. Many other birds in this order
make little or no nest, in the sense of an absolute
bed for their eggs or young, but as they usually
tunnel or burrow in the ground or in timber we
shall have occasion to enter more fully into their
domestic arrangements in a later chapter (conf.
chap iv.). Another large and important assemblage
of birds that make little or no provision for their eggs
contains the Parrots or Psittaciformes, but as these
birds again breed in holes we must also reserve a
description of their “nests.” Then, again, the
Cuckoos and Plantain-eaters associated in the order
Cuculiformes are representatives of a very low type
of avine architecture. Many of the former birds
are parasitic, and have already been dealt with in
the previous chapter. Other Cuckoos make nests
in the ordinary way, crude in type, and some of
which may here be briefly described. The nests of
the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and
the Black-billed Cuckoc (C. exythrophthalmus) (both
remarkably small for the size of the birds) are usually
made on the flat, almost horizontal, branch of a tree

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 69

or in some dense thorn bush, and, as is usual with
most crude nest forms, are flat and shallow, made
externally of slender sticks and roots and lined with
finer roots and dry grass, the model of the whole
structure somewhat resembling that of a Pigeon.
Incidentally we may remark that the eggs of the
first-named species are often laid at considerable
intervals, so that young birds and fresh eggs may be
found in the nest at the same time—a fact that also
tends to refute the theory of Dr Baldamus, already
alluded to in the preceding chapter (conf. p. 57).
Other nest-building Cuckoos are the Coucals (Centro-
pus) and the birds forming the genus Cowa, although
their architecture is but of a crude type. The Lark-
heeled Cuckoo (Centropus toulou) is, however, said to
make a rough globular or dome-shaped nest, with an
entrance at the side scarcely big enough for the
passage of the old birds. Some species in this genus,
however, build more elaborate nests, which we shall
notice in a future chapter (conf. p. 212). The two
species of North American Cuckoo (Geococcyx) also
make their own rude nests; whilst lastly may be
mentioned the Anis (Crotophaga), also inhabitants of
the tropical portions of the New World, and specially
remarkable for the fact that several females band
together and share one common nest, which is of a
crude character.

More familiar builders of the crudest nest-forms
are the Pigeons (Columbiformes). The lowest type of

70 BIRDS’ NESTS

nest is made by the various species that breed in
holes or upon the ground; in fact, we may regard
some of these latter species as nestless, as, for
instance, the Ground Pigeons (Geophaps) of Australia,
which lay and incubate their two buffish-white eggs
upon the bare earth. With this exception the nests
of the Pigeons (a group of birds numbering nearly five
hundred species) are singularly uniform in type, a
fact which indicates an exceptional sameness in the
conditions of life of these birds. When placed in
trees or amongst vegetation of some kind the typical
Pigeon nest is merely a crude platform or flat mat
of sticks and twigs carelessly interwoven, and less
frequently intermixed with stalks and grasses, and
often so slightly made that the two white eggs can
be seen through the basket-like structure from below.
Unquestionably the nests of the Pigeons are by far
the crudest form of avine architecture attempted in
the branches; yet we must take into consideration
the fact that the droppings of the old and young
birds accumulate and harden, and thus materially
strengthen the whole structure, as the time arrives
when it is required to support its maximum of weight.
Probably to this fact is due the prevailing low type of
architecture in this order of birds. That the crude
nest is amply sufficient for the needs of these birds
is proved by the fact that Pigeons are not only
exceptionally abundant as a group, but very widely
dispersed. The very crudeness of the nest renders

&

SRO ARERR SRE EE

NEST OF THE RING DOVE.

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 71

its discovery more difficult, as is conclusively shown
by the numbers that escape detection even when built
in the most frequented or exposed situations. Some
of the Tyrant Birds make very crude nests. Thus,
Tyrannus dominicensis is described by Dr Christy as
astonishingly small flat structures of just a few twigs
placed crossways on each other, and placed at the
extremity of a horizontal branch from six to ten feet
above the ground.

Having now dealt with the crudest nest-forms that
are built away from the ground in trees and other
vegetation, we will proceed to examine the leading
types of such structures that are placed upon or in
the earth. Of these some of the crudest nest-builders
are the Sand-Grouse comprising the order Pediophili.
In fact we might almost class these birds as nestless
species, as the only provision that they make for
their eggs consists of a mere hollow scraped in the
soil, round the margin of which a few blades of
withered grass or bits of dry weed are carelessly
arranged ; but even this latter finishing touch is
frequently omitted. As in the case of the Ostrich
and not a few other birds that breed on deserts and
sands, the eggs are left during the heat of the day,
the sun furnishing sufficient warmth for the purpose
of incubation. Incidentally we may mention that
Sand-Grouse are specially interesting to the British
naturalist, not only because these birds have visited
our islands, sometimes in enormous numbers, as

72 BIRDS’ NESTS

abnormal migrants, but have even nested, or
attempted to nest, in that area.

Another important assemblage of crude nest-
builders is the Game Birds or Galliformes, numbering
about four hundred species and races. Some of the
more aberrant species, however, differ very remarkably
from the ordinary type in the matter of their architec-
ture. These are the Megapodes (conf. p. 126), the
Curassows, Guans, and allied forms, and the Hoatzin,
the nesting arrangements of which will be dealt with
elsewhere (conf. p. 189). The nests of the typical
Game Birds are all constructed on much the same
crude and simple plan, although some are more
elaborate than others. Normally, with the few ex-
ceptions just indicated, the nests of these birds are
made upon the ground. Of course many instances
have been placed on record of such species as
Pheasants and Partridges making their nests on hay-
stacks and other equally abnormal places, but such
are quite exceptional, and may be disregarded in a
scientific review of the architecture of the Galli-
formes. It would be difficult to find in any other
group of species containing such a great diversity of
forms a more uniform style of architecture. Indeed
the general description of one nest will apply almost
in detail to the whole four hundred species. This
consists of a hollow scraped out in the ground and
lined with dry grass, dead leaves, and other vegetable
refuse. Asa rule the crude nest is placed under the

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 73

shelter of a bush or amongst tall vegetation and
growing crops, and is generally well concealed.
One or two slight deviations from the almost uni-
versal rule deserve notice. In the case of two out of
the three known species of Spur Fowl (Galloperdix),
no nest whatever appears to be provided; whilst
the Little Bustard Quail (Turnix dussumieri) is said
occasionally to form a domed or covered-in nest, as
is also the case with the Indian Bustard Quail (T.
tanki). That the nests of the Game Birds, crude and
simple as they are, are in every way adapted to the
requirements of these species seems conclusively
proved by the exceptions to the almost universal
rule which are furnished by the domestic arrange-
ments of the Megapodes, the Curassows, and the
Hoatzin, of which more anon.

The nests of the birds composing the order Chara-
driiformes are almost equally slight and crude. This
order includes the Bustards, Plovers, Sandpipers,
Jacanas, and such archaic forms as the Crab Plover,
the Sheathbills, and allied birds. Although it numbers
nearly three hundred species the uniformity of the
nesting arrangements is singularly remarkable. Re-
viewing briefly the architecture of the principal groups
into which the order has been sub-divided by syste-
matists we have the following facts. The Bustards
(Otidide) make a very slight nest, a mere hollow in
the ground, scantily lined with scraps of dry herbage.
As already pointed out the nearly allied Stone Curlews

74 BIRDS’ NESTS

are nestless, as are also the Coursers and Pratincoles
and the typical Ringed Plovers. Equally crude nests
are made by the Plovers, Sandpipers, and Snipes,
forming the family Charadriidz. Of these, perhaps,
the nests of the Oyster-catchers are the simplest, these
consisting of mere hollows in the shingly beach, in
which the pebbles and broken shells are arranged
with some sort of method. Occasionally the Common
Oyster Catcher of the British coasts has been known
to deposit its eggs in rather curious situations, in the
deserted nest of a Herring Gull, in a cavity at the top
of a felled pine tree, and in a meadow far from the
sea. Another curious fact about the nesting of these
birds is their habit of forming several “mock nests”
near to the one that is used for the reception of the
eggs—a peculiarity also noticed more or less fre-
quently in the domestic arrangements of the Wren.
We have the type of a crude nest form running
through almost all of the remaining groups, one
description of cradle applying equally to the Dotterels,
true Plovers, Lapwings, Stilts, Avocets, Turnstones,
Phalaropes, Curlews, Godwits, the various Sand-
pipers, and the Snipes. The nest is normally placed
upon the ground, and consists of a hollow of varying
size and depth, scantily lined with dead herbage, dry
leaves, reindeer moss, pine needles, and so forth. The
Stilts make a slightly more elaborate nest, especially
when breeding on wet ground, often building a home
in shallow water. Some very curious nests of the

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 75

Black-winged Stilt have been recorded from the salt
works near Delhi, in Upper India. These nests
consisted of little platforms made of pieces of lime,
raised about three inches high and from seven to
twelve inches across. Upon these platforms a slight
bed of dry grass was strewn, on which the eggs were
laid. The Woodcock’s nest, again, is a trifle more
elaborate than usual, as is also that of the Jacanas
(Parridz), possibly in the latter case due to the
aquatic haunts of those birds; whilst the nest of
the Crab Plover (Dromadidz) is said to be placed in
burrows, in sand-hills. Of the annexing habits of
the Green Sandpiper, and occasionally of the Wood
Sandpiper, mention has already been made in our
previous chapter (conf. p. 50). Some of the nests
of the Granes (Gruiformes) are equally crude (conf.
p. 153).

Another crude nest form is made by the Divers
(Colymbidz). Some nests of these birds (there are less
than half a dozen species) are much better made than
others, according to the nature of the ground upon
which they may chance to be placed. Thus when
these crude nests are made upon dry, bare ground
they are mere hollows, sparsely lined with dry grass
and other fragments of vegetation; when they are
situated amongst grass and other herbage in marshes
they are much larger, but the architectural qualities
are still crude, the materials—rotten sedges, rushes,
reeds, dry grass, and so on—being heaped together

76 BIRDS’ NESTS

in the most simple manner. Then we have to con-
sider the equally crude nest-forms of the Penguins
(Impennes), a small order of birds numbering upwards
of twenty species, confined to the Southern Hemi-
sphere. These remarkable birds breed in societies
or “ rookeries” on rocky islands in the southern seas.}
Their crude nests are either made under heaps of
rock, in holes or caves, or amongst the hummocks of
coarse vegetation, and are composed of grass and
leaves. Respecting the species Aptenodytes teniata
breeding on Kerguelen Island, Dr Kidder writes as
follows (Bulletin, U.S. National Museum, No. 2),
respecting a “rookery” which “is established upon
the seaward extremity of a high rocky ridge, running
nearly parallel with the trend of the shore, and abut-
ting upon the sea in lofty bluffs. At the foot of this
ridge is a little rocky cove, where the Penguins land,
and beyond the coast becomes precipitous, the rocks
rising perpendicularly some hundred or more feet.
Up the very steep inland slope of this hill, thickly
overgrown with the ‘Kerguelen cabbage’ and ‘tea,’
the Penguins have to climb, after crossing a consider-
able upland meadow. Numerous very distinct paths
have been worn by successive generations of Penguins,
until the defiles cut in the sod near the sea are, in
some cases, as much as four feet in depth. The track
to a Penguin rookery and their landing-place are

1 The range of the order extends from the Galapagos Islands on
the Equator southwards into the Antarctic Regions.

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 77

always marked by a remarkably luxuriant growth of
a plant with long feathery fronds, belonging to the
order Composite. The tracks followed the course of
a small stream in this instance, and ascended pretty
sharp acclivities, steep enough to try one’s wind in
following them up, until a level plateau was reached
on top of the hill. The eggs (which were here never
more than one to a nest) were laid either in hollows
between the mounds of Azorella, which covered the
plateau, or in little bare spots scratched on their
tops.” The nest of another species, the Rock-hopper
Penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome), is described as being
made of collected shingle, sometimes plastered in a
rough way, and about seven inches in diameter.
Perhaps I might here include another small
order of birds amongst the crude nest-builders, the
Petrels, Procellariiformes; but all things considered,
it seems better to reserve a description of their
nesting arrangements for a later chapter, inasmuch
as many of the species form more or less elaborate
burrows (conf. chap. vi.). One or two, however,
must be noticed here. The nest of the Giant Petrel
(Ossifraga gigantea), for instance, a bird breeding on
Kerguelen Island, is described as a mere hollow
some three feet in diameter, either amongst the
broken stems of Azorella (where the eggs are to
some extent sheltered) or in the sand. Then, again,
the Cape Petrel (Daption capense) is a very crude
architect. This bird breeds on the same island as

78 BIRDS’ NESTS

the former, selecting cavities or grottoes in the
rough cliffs for the purpose. In these it forms a
simple hollow, and there lays its egg upon no lining
whatever. It is interesting to remark, however, that
birds sitting in these hollows, with no egg or chick
beneath them, have been noticed placing little stones
around them with their bills, as if impelled by some
almost lost impulse to gather something with which
to make a nest. I have also remarked a very similar
proceeding on the part of the Fulmar Petrel (conf.
p- 43). This latter bird must also be classed as a crude
nest-builder, many individuals contenting themselves
by hollowing out the soil on the cliffs into a basin-
like receptacle, which is generally scantily lined with
dry grass. Then the Cstrelata parvirostris, breeding
on Christmas Island, makes no nest, but deposits its
egg in a hole scooped in the bare ground, under a
low bush.

Although a few of the Gulls and Terns (Lariformes)
make somewhat elaborate nests, these birds, as a
group, fairly come within the limits of the present
chapter. The crudest nest-builders are unquestion-
ably the Terns. Indeed some of these birds, as we
have already seen, make no provision whatever for
their eggs, laying them on the bare sand or shingle;
others content themselves with the merest apology
for a procreant cradle. This usually takes the form
of a saucer-like hollow, either amongst herbage or
on pebbles and shingle above high-water mark, round

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 79

the margin of which a few bits of seaweed, stalks
of marine plants or twigs are artlessly arranged, or
in other cases it is scantily lined with dry grass
and other vegetable fragments. One of the most
elaborate nest-builders amongst the Terns is the
Noddy (Anous stolidus), its cradle being described
as often a large structure made of dry grass,
seaweed, and twigs, but these are so rudely massed
together as fully to warrant its inclusion amongst
the crude nest forms. The Skuas (Stercorariidz)
have little or no more claim to be regarded as nest-.
builders. Their nests are mere hollows trod in the
moss or scraped out in barer ground, scantily lined
with dry grass or withered vegetable fragments; this
description applying equally to the species that breed
in the highest latitudes of both hemispheres. The
Gulls (Laridz) are a trifle more elaborate in their
architecture, especially the smaller species or such
that habitually breed in marshes. The nests of
the larger species are usually crude in the extreme,
many being nothing but hollows in the sand, amongst
marine herbage or on ledges of cliffs, lined sparingly
with grass, straws, and scraps of dead vegetation.
Sometimes the rim of these hollows may be gar-
nished with a few dead twigs of heath or other
similar plants. Some nests (such as those of the
Glaucous Gull, Larus glaucus) are composed of heaps
of sand, the apex being slightly hollowed and strewn
with bits of dry seaweed. The Herring Gull (L.

80 BIRDS’ NESTS

argentatus) not unfrequently builds a more substantial
nest than usual, made of stalks and twigs, turf, and
masses of seaweed, lined with grass and wool, and
perhaps a few feathers, but it is made in a slovenly
fashion. This bird has also been known to make a
large nest on a tree, a change of habit by the way
that has taken place within the memory of man.
The Kittiwake (Rissa tridactylus) is one of the most
elaborate architects in the order, and its nest may
fairly be included in the following chapter dealing
with open nests. Some of the Black-headed Gulls
make much more substantial nests, yet these may
with propriety be included under the present heading.
Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus philadelphia), however, must
certainly be classed with the kittiwake as a fairly
able architect. The Black-headed Gull (L. ridibundus)
shows a remarkable variety in the structure of its
nest, doubtless according to special circ imstances.
Some of these nests are little more than hollows in
the spongy ground, whilst in other instances the eggs
can scarcely be said to rest in a nest at all. Others,
especially such as are built in shallow water, are
large floating structures composed of reeds, flags, and
other aquatic vegetation lined with grass and other
fine materials; whilst even more interesting still,
nests are occasionally made in trees or on the roof
of some building, such as a boathouse. We thus
have another most remarkable instance of the
adaptability displayed by birds in the matter of

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 81

nest-building, another proof of the way in which
birds can construct nests in harmony with special
conditions, and unquestionably by the exercise of
reasoning powers, and profiting by experience. The
fact still further confirms our contention that nests
are purely utilitarian structures, and that the cruder
forms of cradle are just as well worthy of our
admiration as the higher forms of architectural
skill. We may rest assured that had a higher type
of nest been required, had a more elaborate cradle
been necessary, the birds that build these crude
structures would have developed much higher types
of architecture. So long as the inducement or the
necessity for something more elaborate is wanting
the cruder form of nest will be made, because it is
the one best in harmony with the special needs of
its feathered architect or designer. The reader will
therefore do well to compare the above remarks with
the descriptions given of other Gulls’ nests in the
following pages in further proof of the assertion
(conf. p. 140).

Our last great group of crude nest-builders com-
prises the ducks and allied birds associated together
in the great natural order Anseriformes. In this
assemblage, however, we find much variation in the
architectural qualities of the procreant cradle. The
Screamers, forming the very natural sub-order
Palamedez, and the Flamingoes included in the
equally distinct sub-order Phcenicopteri, may fairly

F

82 BIRDS’ NESTS

claim to be considered as nest-builders of a somewhat
higher class (conf. pp. 139, 152); whilst even amongst
the birds in the remaining sub-order, the Anseres, the
nests are by no means of a uniform degree of crude-
ness, some being much more elaborate than others.
We cannot exactly class the nests of the Swans
(Cygninz), and at least some of those of the Geese
(Anserinz), as crude, and must reserve them for
inclusion in another chapter. Even amongst the
more crude nest-building Ducks there is considerable
diversity, not only in the situation of the nest, but in
the elaborateness or otherwise of the structure pro-
vided. Notwithstanding their undoubted crudeness,
the nests of most Ducks are, when completed, very
beautiful structures. This beauty is almost entirely
derived from the dense warm lining of down plucked
from the female’s body, and added as the eggs are
laid or as incubation progresses. Crude as the nests
of the Ducks are, we have several very distinct types.
Broadly speaking, the nests are either concealed in
holes or placed among vegetation of some kind. The
normal hole-building Ducks include such species as
the Golden-eyes, the Buffel-headed Ducks, the Mer-
gansers, and the Smew. None of these hole-breeders
can be said to make any nest. The hole in a tree is
selected ready-made, and the eggs are deposited upon
the decayed or powdered wood at the bottom, but a
warm lining of down is eventually added. Then we
have the various species of burrow Ducks that incubate

E MALLARD (ANAS BOSCHAS).

TH

F

NEST AND EGGS O

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 83

their eggs in disused fox earths, rabbit holes, and so
forth, and of which our own Sheldrake is an excellent
example. Exceptionally these birds are said to make
their own burrows, and in that case they are almost
circular. These burrows are sometimes as much as
fifteen feet in length. A slight nest is made at the
extremity of dry grass, but as likely as not this may
have been brought there by the original owner of the
burrow, and not by the birds, but as the eggs are
deposited a plentiful bed of down accumulates around
them. Then there are other species that prefer to
nest among holes in rocks, as the Ruddy Sheldrake,
but the down added after laying commences is the
principal nest; or others yet again like the Eiders
that select by choice low rocky islands, making their
nests among crannies and clefts, or even in suitable
hollows in ruined masonry. These are more bulky
than the generality of Ducks’ nests, yet rudely made,
composed of dry sea-weed, heather, coarse grass, and
bits of dead vegetation; the added lining of down,
however, softens their crudeness and lends them
beauty. The majority of Ducks place their nests in
more open situations amongst vegetation of some
kind, often aquatic, and especially among heather,
bracken, and other long herbage, whilst the shelter
of a bush is very frequently sought. These nests
usually consist of a hollow of varying depth rudely
lined with dry grass, dead leaves, broken sedge and
reeds, but in some cases scarcely any nest whatever

84 BIRDS’ NESTS

is provided, until the never-failing carpet of down is
added. The more or less speckled appearance of this
down makes a fully completed Duck’s nest look very
pretty, and more especially so when, as is often the
case, it is well mixed with the bright-hued vegetable
fragments that go to form the remainder. Naturalists
are by no means agreed upon the precise use of this
down in the nesting economy of the Ducks, some
maintaining that it is placed there for purposes of
warmth, being an admirable non-conductor of heat.
Others incline to the opinion that it serves to conceal
the eggs from enemies, the sitting Duck being careful
to cover these with a downy coverlet when leaving
them for a time. I incline to the latter belief, not
only because Ducks breeding in the warmest countries
of the world, where extra heat is unnecessary, still
surround their eggs with down, whilst other species
breeding in the same localities, almost side by side,
require no such supplementary warmth, or are even
nestless, but because I have seen so many instances
where the hidden eggs have been most effectually
concealed by the harmony of their covering with sur-
rounding objects. It may be worthy of remark that
the species nesting in covered sites, in burrows or in
holes of trees and so forth, have the down pale and
conspicuous—a fact which would only lead to the
discovery of the nest were it built in a more exposed
or open site. The nests of some of the Geese are
quite as crude as those of the Ducks already men-

THE CRUDEST NEST FORMS 85

tioned, being merely hollows in the ground, into
which a little dry grass or other vegetable fragments
are collected. These nests, however, finally receive a
warm and copious lining of down.

In bringing this review of crude nest-forms to a
conclusion, it may be well to point out the following
facts which their scientific study seems to suggest.
In the first place the number of species that may
fairly be classed as builders of the crudest forms of
nest is very little short of two thousand five hundred,
or considerably more than one-fifth of the known
species of birds. The significance of this fact cannot
be over-estimated in demonstrating how certain con-
ditions of life determine this crude type of architec-
ture and inexorably preserve it. Two other facts
are brought into very suggestive prominence by this
cursory review of the crudest forms of nest. The
first is that an exceptionally large percentage of the
species are either aquatic or terrestrial in their habits,
and naturally select the ground as a site for their
procreant cradle. In such a situation an elaborate
or bulky nest would in a vast number of instances be
exceedingly conspicuous, so that we see a slight and
crude nest is the one best adapted to the conditions
of existence. The second fact is that the young of an
equally large percentage of these crude nest-builders
are hatched in a condition that renders them inde-
pendent of a nest, being in many cases able to run
almost as soon as they break from the shell, or are at

86 BIRDS’ NESTS

any rate more or less warmly clothed with down, so
that an elaborate nest is unnecessary. In other cases
the nest arrangements, although crude, are eminently
adapted to conditions of existence, as in the case
of the Pigeons, where a slight wicker-work cradle is
strengthened by the droppings of the birds.

CHAPTER IV
CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS

87

CHAPTER IV

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS

Nests made in earth tunnels—Sand Martins—Tunnel-boring Wood-Hewers
—Nest of Sclerurus umbretta—Of the Kingfishers—Of the Jacamars, Todys,
and Bee-eaters—Of certain Parrakeets—Of the Burrowing Owl—Of the Puffins
—Of the Petrels—Stormy Petrel—Fork-tailed Petrel—Spectacled Petrel—Of
the Whale Birds—Of the Shearwaters—Cave-building Birds—The Jackdaw—
The Choughs—The Rock Dove—The Shag—Cock of the Rock—Oil Bird—
Edible Swifts—Alpine Swift—Cave-building Swallows—Nests under stones and
in holes and fissures of rocks—Various Petrels—Little Auk—Horned Puffin—
Little Owl—Certain Parrots—Various Chats—Redstarts and Accentors—Wall
Creeper—Rose-coloured Starling—Buntings and Swallows and Pipits—Timber-
building Birds— Woodpeckers and Wrynecks— Hornbills—Toucans and
Trogons—Barbets and Honey Guides—Parrots—Certain Cockatoos—Hoopoes—
Rollers —Titmice —Nuthatches—Certain Flycatchers — Sparrows— Nest of
Phylloscopus occipitalis—Scop’s Owl—Certain Ducks—Nests in holes, in banks,
or under tussocks of vegetation— Robins and Buntings—Twite and Ring
Ousel—Mound Birds—The Philosophy of Concealed Nests.

In this chapter I propose to make a brief review of
those nests that are absolutely concealed from view,
either in tunnels or holes, in ground, rocks and timber,
under stones, or even by artificial means employed
by the feathered architects themselves. We have a
great variety of birds coming within such a class of
architecture, belonging to widely divergent and
remotely related groups, a fact conclusively proving
that the method of nest-building, the general plan of
architecture, is far more intimately correlated with
conditions of life than with taxonomic affinity, special
89

90 BIRDS’ NESTS

appliances (natural tools, such as bill and feet), or
even mental development.

We will deal first with those nests that are made in
tunnels in the earth. It is somewhat remarkable how
comparatively few species resort to this method of
providing a procreant cradle; but although few in
number, the representatives of this particular kind of
nest-building are drawn from widely divergent groups.
These tunnels or burrows may either be driven into
the face of sand or earth cliffs, or formed in the
ground itself. Curiously enough we find amongst
these feathered excavators some of the least likely
birds—species one would think to examine them very
ill equipped for such kind of work. One of the most
familiar of these tunnel nests is made by our well-
known Sand Martin, all the more interesting because
these birds rank amongst the few known Passeres
that excavate out of the five thousand five hundred
known forms. As a rule these Martins prefer a cliff
of fairly firm clay, loam, or earth, sand pits and the
layer of soil at the top of a quarry being favourite
sites, but less frequently their excavations are made
in soft sandstone, sufficiently hard nevertheless to
take all the cutting edge off a hardened steel knife
blade! When once the locality has been selected the
birds seek out a suitable spot in which to commence
their shaft, often making several attempts before
finally deciding. A small circular hole is first formed
with the bill (one of the weakest looking, by the way,

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 91

throughout the class Aves), the bird clinging to the
bank face meantime and working round and round.
Then as the tunnel gets longer the bird is able to
stand in the excavation and cast out all the loose soil
with its feet. Bill and feet keep steadily at work,
chiefly in the early portions of each day, until the
gallery extends several feet into the cliff. Sometimes
the tunnel has to be deserted should a large stone, a
tree root, or other impediment block the way, or in
many cases when the cliff is too soft or too hard to
admit of successful boring. Although the holes vary
considerably in length and general direction, they
invariably slope upwards. Some tunnels are almost
straight, others turn to the right or left, and are from
three to five inches in diameter. As a rule these
tunnels are circular, but in some cases they are more
or less oval or rectangular. At the end of the gallery
the tunnel is enlarged into a sort of chamber about
six or eight inches in height, and here a loose nest is
formed of dry grass and straws, lined sparingly with
feathers. Sand Martins breed in colonies of varying
size, and in some places the cliffs are literally honey-
combed with their burrows, the birds returning year
by year to the same spot to rear their young. The
Rock Sparrow (Petronia stulta) also bores into banks
and makes its nest in a burrow three or four feet
in depth, a cutting or railway embankment being a
favourite situation.

Our next burrowing Passere is a somewhat aberrant

92 BIRDS’ NESTS

member of the family Dendrocolaptide, the Loch-
mias nematura of ornithologists, a species inhabiting
South America. I believe Dr Goeldi was the first
naturalist correctly and fully to describe the domestic
arrangements of this interesting bird. Prom his
contribution to the Ibis I derive the following facts.
This beautiful bird, known to the people of Minas
Geraes by the uncomplimentary nickname “ Presi-
dente da porcaria,” in consequence of its partiality for
dirty places, builds its nest at the end of a nearly
horizontal burrow, the end of which gallery being
enlarged into a spacious cavity to contain it. The
next, which Dr Goeldi was able to remove entire after
much careful excavation, is described by him as
wonderfully large, reminding him of that of the
European Dipper. “Like that it is a vaulted globe
with a lateral entrance. The exterior is made of
small roots and branches; the interior lining consists
of regularly-crossed dry bamboo leaves. The walls of
the central cavity especially are very well made, and con-
sist of crossed bamboo leaves woven in a really artistic
manner. The sagittal diameter of the nest is 13°5 cm.,
the transverse 125 cm. The entrance aperture has
a diameter of 3:5 cm. The thickness of the walls is
everywhere less than 3 cm.” Dr Goeldi further states
that there is a striking resemblance between the size
and shape of this nest with that of the Oven-bird.
The materials and situation of the latter, however,
are very different, notwithstanding the fact that the

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 93

two birds are somewhat closely allied (conf. p. 244
for a description of this nest).

Another species in the same family (Sclerurus
umbretta) nests in a very similar manner, but the
nest is a flat and open one, intricately interwoven
and composed entirely of dry leaf ribs. It burrows
into banks and the nest chamber is a circular one,
both tunnel and chamber being smooth and clean.
Lastly, we may mention that some of the species in
the Passerine family Pteroptochide excavate tunnels
several feet in length in banks, at the end of these
galleries constructing their nests in a slightly enlarged
chamber.

Other remarkable tunnelled nests are made by
species belonging to a remotely allied group, of which
our own familiar Kingfisher (Alcedo ispida) is typical.
Some of the species belonging to the family Alcedinide,
however, prefer to nest in holes of trees, or in hollows
scooped out of termites’ nests placed in eucalyptus
trees. These are the Laughing Kingfishers (Dacelo),
whilst another Australian species (Tanysiptera sylvia)
bores a tunnel into an ant-hill for nesting purposes.
Although Kingfishers not unfrequently take possession
of a deserted rat hole, or some other similar conveni-
ent burrow, they are quite capable of boring one for
themselves, as they very often do. These tunnels are
usually excavated in some suitable spot on the steep
banks of a stream, but sometimes they may be made
in the sides of gravel pits, in the sides of ant-bears’

94 BIRDS’ NESTS

earths, and other even less likely situations at some
distance from water. Kingfishers, although they pos-
sess remarkably weak feet, are well equipped with
strong, powerful bills, and with these, pick-axe like,
the work of excavation is performed. The burrow is
constructed upon very similar principles to that of
the Sand Martin’s, sloping slightly upwards from the
entrance and penetrating for several feet into the
solid earth. Our British species often takes as long
as a fortnight or three weeks to complete its burrow.
At the end a sort of chamber is formed, and in this a
nest is made of fish-bones, the remains of the birds’
food. It is flat and saucer-shaped, and more likely
then not rests upon and is surrounded by excreta and
fish remains, which produce a most evil smell. The
Jacamars (Galbulidz), the Todys (Todidz) and the
Bee-eaters (Meropidz) are other groups of birds that
nest in a very similar manner to the Kingfishers.}
The Common Bee-eater (Merops apiaster), an ab-
normal migrant to the British Islands, and one that
breeds very commonly in various parts of Southern
Europe, may be taken as a typical species. Like
the Sand Martin, this Bee-eater is gregarious, and
numbers of tunnels are made by different pairs in the
same locality. Its favourite haunts are earth cliffs on
the banks of rivers. Unlike various other burrowing

1 Of the nidification of the much duller coloured Puff Birds (Buc-
conidze) but little is known. That they are hole-builders, however,
seems to be fairly conclusive.

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 95

birds, the Bee-eater seems to prefer to excavate a
new residence every season. The long tunnel, which
sometimes extends as many as nine feet into a solid
earth bank, is chiefly made by the bird’s long pointed
bill, which, according to Irby, is sometimes worn
down to half its usual length by the work! The feet
and claws also assist in the excavation. The tunnel
is generally nearly straight and horizontal, but some-
times very tortuous, and communicating with other
burrows by narrow galleries. Both birds assist in
the task, each working in turn. On an average, the
passage is three or four feet in length, but sometimes
much more. At the end it widens out into a sort of
chamber, and here the eggs are laid with no further
provision, if we except the wing cases of insects,
which form the refuse of the birds’ food, which
generally surround them as incubation proceeds.
In some places where banks are not available, the
Bee-eater sinks a nearly perpendicular or oblique
shaft into the level ground. The Roller (Coracias
garrulus) is said sometimes to burrow into a bank for
nesting purposes, but it generally prefers holes in
wood, and therefore is more aptly included with the
birds mentioned on a future page (conf. p. 120).
Some of the Parrakeets (Conurus) might also be
mentioned here as instances of burrowing species
did space permit.

Another remarkable bird coming into the present
division of nest builders is the Burrowing Owl (Speotyto

96 BIRDS’ NESTS

cunicularia) of America. This is the little bird that is
popularly supposed to live in harmony and share its
burrow with the prairie dog and the rattlesnake, but
such sentimental stories have long been disproved by
such accurate observers as the late Dr Coues and
Captain Bendire, the latter remarking that no such
happy families exist in reality, the Owl being pugnacious
and more than a match for dog and snake, the presence
of which it apparently resents in its own particular
dwelling. In some localities this Owl prefers to burrow
into a hillside; in others the choice seems to be
for level ground. Sometimes a burrow of a ground
squirrel or a badger is annexed; if that of the former,
the tunnel is considerably enlarged. This Owl is to
some extent gregarious, its “towns” consisting of
from three to a dozen or more pairs. Bendire states
that in burrowing (which appears to be done principally
if not entirely by the feet) the loosened sand or earth
is thrown out backwards with vigorous kicks, the bird
backing gradually towards the entrance and moving
the dirt outward as it advances. The burrows vary
considerably in length and depth, but are rarely less
than five feet in length, and frequently double as
much. If made on level ground the shaft is first
sunk diagonally for two or three feet, sometimes
almost perpendicularly for that distance, when it
turns abruptly, the chamber containing the nest being
invariably situated above the lowest part of the burrow.
When a hillside is bored the burrow runs straight in

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 97

for a few feet and then makes a sharp turn to the
chamber, or it will follow a horse-shoe shaped curve.
The tunnels are about five inches in diameter, and the
nest chamber from about a foot to a foot and a half in
width. The nest is generally made of dry horse- or
cow-dung, this material carpeting the chamber to a
depth of several inches, but sometimes a more
elaborate structure of dry grass, stalks of plants, and
feathers is formed.

Other remarkable bird burrowers are furnished by
the Puffins (Alcidz). The habit of burrowing, how-
ever, is by no means universal amongst these
birds, some species rearing their young in hollows
and crevices of rocks and cliffs. A very typical
burrowing example of these birds is the Common
Puffin (Fratercula arctica) found breeding in
abundance in certain parts of the British Islands.
Like most burrowing birds the Puffin occasionally
annexes the hole of some other creature, that of a
rabbit especially, but in the great majority of
instances it is its own architect. This bird burrows
into the soft earth on sea-cliffs, as well as into the level
ground, whilst in other cases it finds a convenient
shelter in old and ruined masonry. The formidable
beak—shaped something like a coulter of a plough—
and the excessively sharp claws are both used in the
excavation of the burrow. Like the Burrowing Owl,
the Puffin casts out the loose earth and stones behind
it with its legs and feet, and I have often stood below

G

98 BIRDS’ NESTS

the cliffs and watched the almost continual shower of
débris as the active little birds have worked away
hundreds of feet above me. As a rule the Puffin
excavates a much larger burrow than it actually
needs, especially in districts where the soil is soft
and crumbling. The burrow, which often resembles
that of a rabbit, is excavated by both birds working in
turn, and in some cases one common entrance will
branch out into several tunnels occupied by as many
pairs. It is rarely straight, often winding about in a
most extraordinary manner, sometimes shaped like
a horse-shoe, and may extend several yards under
ground. As a rule the tunnel is about three or four
feet in length. At the end, in a slight hollow, a scanty
nest of dry grass and occasionally a few feathers is
formed, upon which the solitary egg is deposited.
Puffins are eminently gregarious during the breeding
season, and as the birds return annually to certain
spots to nest, the ground often for many acres is
undermined in every direction, as well as covered
with deep hollows where the excavations have fallen
in. Some of these colonies of Puffins, notably those
at St Kilda and the Farne Islands, are intensely in-
teresting places to visit, as the number of birds is
past all belief. One of these colonies at St Kilda,
situated in a sandy bank on the shores of Village
Bay, close to the store, is almost exactly like a
colony of Sand Martins, the great height of the cliff
—and the consequent distance at which the holes

*

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 99

are viewed — assisting to make the comparison
complete.

The last group of typical burrowing birds that I
shall notice here is the Petrels, forming the great
natural order Procellariiformes. We have already
had occasion to glance at the domestic arrangements
of some of these birds building crude nests in the
open. The majority of species, perhaps, breed in
places where the eggs are concealed from view, and
not a few of the birds tunnel into the ground to
secure that purpose. Beginning with the more
familiar species we may instance the nest burrow
of the Stormy Petrel (Procellaria pelagica). This
tiny bird—the smallest known web-footed species—
always endeavours to secure a burrow ready made,
the discarded hole of some other creature, or failing
that will seek a nesting-place under rocks or in heaps
of stones or masonry; but in some localities it is
compelled by circumstances to excavate a tunnel for
itself. This is rarely more than a foot or two in
depth, at the end of which it forms a bed of dry
grass for its solitary egg. Another, and much rarer
species, the Fork-tailed Petrel (P. leach), breeds locally
on the western coasts of our islands. This species
is a much more elaborate excavator, its burrows
sometimes extending as many as six feet, but more
usually four or five feet. This burrow is seldom
straight, but winds about in a very erratic manner,
and often has several outlets. It is usually made in

100 BIRDS’ NESTS

the soft soil on or near the summit of a cliff. In
some cases one of these “ earths” will shelter several
pairs of birds. The slight nest is made of dry grass,
moss, roots, and a few bits of lichen torn from the
surrounding rocks, whilst in exceptional cases the
single egg is laid upon the bare ground. Both these
Petrels are gregarious, and some of the colonies
contain a great many pairs of birds. Some of the
less familiar species are equally interesting in their
domestic arrangements. One of the most remarkable
of these bird-burrowers is the Spectacled Petrel
(Majaqueus equinoctialis), a species that breeds on
Kerguelen Island. Some very interesting observa-
tions made by Mr R. Hall, and contributed to the
Ibis (1900, pp. 21, 22), may be aptly quoted here: “ Of
eleven nests found, only one was in dry ground; the
others were in hillsides, down which snow water ran
at all seasons of the year. The earth was simply
saturated with water, and in it were tunnels, always
beginning under a small cascade, and running back
for a distance varying from five to eight feet, and in
one instance I dug eleven feet to reach the egg. The
holes are in groups of from three to six, judging from
four colonies examined by myself. At the end of a
crooked tunnel is a semi-spherical cavity, with a flat
floor covered with water, and in the middle of this
space is a raised circular bed of rootlets, saucer-like,
inverted, with an indent just above the water-level.”
Surely this is one of the most remarkable nests

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 101

ever described, the birds, in some instances, having
literally to wade through water to reach the entrance
of the burrow concealed under the bank. Some of
the Whale-birds: and Prions are also accomplished
burrowers. Dr Kidder records the following respect-
ing the underground nest of one of the former, the
Halobena cerulea of ornithologists: “The burrows
are excavated beneath the mounds of an umbelliferous
plant, which abounds on the Kerguelen hillside
(Azorella selago), growing in dense masses of often
several feet in diameter. The holes usually run
straight inward for a foot or more, then turn sharply
to the right or left, parallel with the hillside, thence
downward, often doubling once or twice upon them-
selves and communicating with other entrances. At
the bottom is an enlarged cavity, lined with fine root-
fibres, twigs, ferns or leaves of the ‘ Kerguelen tea’
(Acena affinis), and quite dry. Here the single egg
is to be found, always quite covered with dry powdered
earth or the leaves above mentioned. The diameter
of the burrows at their entrance is about that of a
man’s wrist.” Then, again, the Shearwaters (Puffinus)
are most expert burrowers, and form a slight nest at
the end of a tunnel. One of the most familiar species
is the Manx Shearwater (Puffinus anglorum), which
gathers in certain spots on the British Islands to rear
its young. Allthese birds are more or less gregarious,
and the ground of their chosen haunts is honeycombed
in all directions.

102 BIRDS’ NESTS

From nests made in burrows we may conveniently
pass to a consideration of those which are concealed
in caves. The number of species that breed in caves
is not very great comparatively speaking, and of those
not a few make use of other situations as well. Of
the species that occasionally make use of caves for
nesting purposes one of the most familiar is the
Jackdaw (Corvus monedula). The nest of this bird is
often a huge pile of sticks wedged into some crevice
of the rocks in a cave. At the apex of this pillar or
heap of sticks a nest of dry grass, moss, dead leaves,
and straws, lined with fur, wool, and feathers, is
formed. Another, but in our country unfortunately
now much less common, cave dweller is the Chough
(Pyrrhocorax graculus). This species again is by no
means confined to caves for nesting purposes, for it
selects holes in cliffs or ruins as well. When the nest
is made in a cave some fissure in the sides or roof is
selected. This nest is made externally of sticks,
branches of heather, and stalks of plants, and the
cup containing the eggs is formed of dry grass, roots,
wool, fur and occasionally hair. The structure varies
a good deal in bulk, according to the size of the site
selected, the birds evidently liking to cram as much
material into the fissure as it will conveniently hold.
The Rock Dove (Columba livia) is a much more per-
sistent cave haunter, always selecting such a spot for
nesting duties if such be available. Colonies of this
Dove, varying in size according to the amount of

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS _ 103

accommodation, are scattered over most parts of the
British coast where suitable breeding places occur.
The nest, typical of the Pigeons already described in
a previous chapter (conf. p. 69), is placed on con-
venient ledges, or in chinks and fissures in the sides
or roof of the selected cave. The Shag (Phalacro-
corax graculus) is another species that prefers a cave
for nesting in if one is to be had. Its nest is a bulky
structure, placed on some convenient shelf or in a
fissure made externally of sticks, dry stalks of plants,
and seaweed, and lined with dry grass, straws, and
turf, the whole being more or less matted together
with droppings and decaying fish refuse. This nest,
I should say, is used year after year, and numbers of
pairs breed in the same cave if sufficient sites are
available. The Cape Petrel, the nest of which we
have already mentioned (conf. p. 77), may also be
instanced as a breeder in caves or grottoes.

Coming now to the most typical cave dwellers, we
may give as our first instance that curious species,
the Cock of the Rock (Rupicola). Several species of
these birds are known, inhabitants of the tropical
portions of South America. The nest is made of
mud, possibly mixed with a sticky saliva, the inner
structure composed of twigs, lined with moss, and is
attached to the sides of some dark cave. Then we have
that extraordinary species, the Oil Bird (Steatornis
caripensis), perhaps better known by its Spanish name
“ Guacharo,” an inhabitant of various parts of South

104 BIRDS’ NESTS

America. The Guacharo is a cave dweller in every
sense of the word, not only rearing its young in
caverns but spending the entire day in these gloomy
retreats, coming forth at night in quest of food. The
nest of this bird is said to be made of clay, and bowl-
like in shape. Vast numbers of these birds live in
company, and their caves are harried by the Indians
for the sake of the young Oil Birds, which are excep-
tionally fat, and yield a certain oil much prized for
culinary and illuminating purposes. The last avine
cave dwellers that we may notice here are the species
forming the genus Collocalia. These are the Swifts,
the nests of which are made into the famous birds’-
nest soup, a delicacy so highly prized in China and
other parts of the East. Perhaps the best known
species is the Collocalia esculenta, an inhabitant of
the Moluccas, but three others are found in the
Andaman Islands. A very interesting account of
these latter appeared some years ago in a Calcutta
paper, and was republished in the Ibis for 1892
(pp. 578, 579), and which may be quoted here. “The
Swifts arrive at the Andamans towards the end of
November. Before their advent a party of convicts
and Andamanese is sent round to all the caves in
which the birds build, to clear away the old nests in
which the previous season’s young have been hatched .
out, to bring in all the refuse, which is sold for
Rs. 5 per seer, and generally to clean the caves.
The fine break between the monsoons, in October, is

NEST OF THE EDIBLE SWIFT (COLLOCALIA).

hearts,

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 105

generally taken advantage of for this work, but
instances have occurred where the collectors have
been overtaken by a storm, their boats smashed up
and lost, and they themselves placed in rather an
awkward position. The birds take their time about
commencing to build, and if there has been a wet
December the first crop of nests is generally a poor
one, being soiled by the damp and drippings from
the roofs of the caves. However, about the last
week in January, the collectors go round the islands
to the different caves, a journey which takes about
three weeks in an open boat, and bring in all the
nests that have been built. The best quality, re-
sembling pure isinglass, and worth their weight in
silver, are found in caves in limestone and volcanic
rock, the nests built in sandstone and serpentine
being inferior. The birds now build much faster,
and at the end of February a second collection is
made, which is usually the best of the season. The
third collection is made in April, when the nests,
though of good quality, are thin and dry. The birds
are then left to build and hatch out their young.
They leave the islands soon after the south-west
monsoon sets in. The nests are very carefully
removed from the rock by an iron trident, and are
kept in clean linen bags, as it is important that they
should not be crushed, soiled, or wetted by the sea-
water. When brought into Port Blair they are
cleaned from all feathers and impurities, and then

106 BIRDS’ NESTS

packed in circular bundles weighing about four
pounds each, and sealed according to their quality.
There are three classes of nests—Ist class, which
are pure white, resembling isinglass, and which
realise from Rs. 180 to Rs. 145 per viss; 2nd class,
which are clean, but yellow in colour, and realise
about Rs. 100 to Rs. 110 per viss; 3rd class, which
are discoloured, and have feathers and other foreign
matter in them, and realise about Rs. 90 per viss.
The refuse and clippings over from cleaning the
nests realise about Rs. 4°8 per seer. The nests are
formed from a gelatinous secretion from the salivary
glands of the birds, but there is one kind of Swift
which makes its nest of grass, straws, moss, and
feathers glued together, and fastened on to the rock
by this secretion. The caves in which the nests are
found are scattered about the islands, some, such
as those at Stewart’s Sound, far inland; others in
rocks concealed in mangrove swamps; and the
Malays, who were the original traders here in
these articles, must have been very persevering to have
found them—I suppose they watched the flight of the
Swifts. Many of the caves are quite dark, and in
these torches are necessary, and occasionally ladders ;
others are only to be approached through the surf.”
Some of the other Swifts are occasionally met with
breeding in caves, as, for instance, the Alpine Swift
(Cypselus melba); also certain species of Swallow, as,
for instance, Hirundo hyperythra, and less frequently

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS _ 107

the British Swallow (H. rustica). There can be little
doubt that before buildings were available these birds
bred much more commonly in caves and crevices of
cliffs than they do at the present time.

From nests made in caves we will pass to a con-
sideration of those that are habitually concealed under
stones or in crevices, holes and fissures of rocks. The
birds that resort to these situations are not only
numerous, but representatives of remotely allied
groups. Some of the Petrels, for instance, habitually
resort to stones and broken cliffs for breeding pur-
poses, whilst some others that generally nest in
burrows in the ground occasionally do so. Confining
our remarks to the most typical rock and stone
builders, we may illustrate these in the first instance
by the home of Wilson’s Petrel (Oceanites oceanicus).
Of the nest of this Petrel on Kerguelen Island, Mr
R. Hall writes (Ibis, 1900, p. 20) as follows: “Go
straight to a wild-looking piece of the coast if you
want nests. Look under large or small slabs of
stone, or within the crevices of the cliff-sides. Most
of the nests are saucer-like, and neatly put together
with loose twigs. Your shovel will act as a lever to
lift the slabs and expose them, when the sitting bird
moves away to the farthest corner to escape the light,
never offering to bite, although the act would be harm-
less.” Mr Hall goes on to say that the nests were
built principally of Azarella stalks, that they were flat
in shape, and placed in shallow indentations beneath

108 BIRDS’ NESTS

a stone, with no definite tunnel running to them,
although in some cases the bird would scratch an
entrance. A typical nest measured seven inches by
five inches, and the depth of the bowl was five inches.
Then we may mention Bulwer’s Petrel (Bulweria
columbina), which places its egg under rock fragments
or large stones at the foot of cliffs, whilst the Stormy
Petrel is especially addicted to nesting in heaps of
loose stones. Mention might here also be made of
the Little Auk (Mergulus alle), which deposits its soli-
tary egg under large stones and rock fragments, but
does not, however, make a nest. Taking another
example from the same family (Alcide) of birds,
we may instance the Horned Puffin (Fratercula
corniculata), a species which breeds in some numbers
on Bering Island and the Commander Islands, and
which lays its egg between stones or in holes in rocks.
Then some of the Owls must be included in the
present class of rock-breeders. Perhaps one of the
most familiar is the Little Owl (Athene noctua) with its
southern representative Athene glaux. These birds
often lay their eggs on a scanty nest (usually of food
refuse after the manner of their kind) in a rock
crevice or beneath a large boulder ; whilst in Algeria, in
localities where cliffs are absent, the Southern Little
Owl seeks a suitable substitute in the sides of the wells.
Mention should also here be made of such species as
the Jackdaw and the Starling, which not unfrequently
resort to such localities in quest of a nesting site.

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS _ 109

Some of the Parrots also nest in rock crevices, whilst
some of the Geese make their nests in hollows in
sandy cliffs, as, for instance, the Chloephaga melan-
optera of Chili (conf. Ibis, 1897, p. 190).

Amongst Passerine birds we have many instances
of nest-builders amongst rocks and stones. Such
sites are in some cases peculiar to entire groups;
in others they form exceptions to a very different
method of nidification. Amongst the most thorough
rock-builders we may first mention the Chats
(Turdidz), of which our own Wheatear (Saxicola
eénanthe) is a very familiar example. Between thirty
and forty species of these birds are known to science.
Their nests are remarkably uniform, not only in the
manner of construction, but in their situation. The
Chats are pre-eminently rock birds; they are birds
of the bare, stony hillsides and boulder-strewn plains
and desert sands, showing no partiality for arboreal
haunts. Many of the species build their nests under
masses of broken rock, or in heaps of stones, others
select holes in the ground, often the deserted burrows
of some small animal, or in holes in ant-hills, as in
the case of Saxicola pileata. Their nests are cup-
shaped, somewhat loosely put together, and made
externally of dry grass, moss and roots, and lined
with finer roots and grass, sometimes hair and
feathers, but in some species both the latter soft
materials are omitted, as, for instance, in the Desert
Wheatear (S. deserti). Some of these nests are placed

110 BIRDS’ NESTS

several feet fromthe open air. The Common Wheat-
ear very frequently selects a crevice in a stack of peat
for a nesting site—a purely artificial position, and one
that indicates a change in selection within compara-
tively recent times. Another typical group of rock-
builders are contained in the genus Monticola. These
are the Rock Thrushes, birds somewhat closely allied
to the Chats and the Redstarts. They are dwellers
among the rocks, and place their nests in holes of
them. These nests are made on precisely the same
model as those of the Chats, being loosely made of
dry grasses, roots and moss, and lined with finer
fibres, hair, and feathers. A hole in a rock, or a
hollow beneath a boulder, or in a heap of stones, is
frequently chosen, whilst the materials of the nest
vary a good deal according to local conditions, the
softer linings being often omitted in districts where
such are difficult to obtain. Many of the closely
allied Redstarts (Ruticilla) make very similar provision
for their eggs, placing their cup-shaped nests in holes
and crevices of rocks, and forming them of like
materials. These birds occasionally find a substitute
for a rock in some hole in a tree—a trait common to
various other species normally breeding in the former
sites. Again, some of the Accentors (Accentor) make
their cup-shaped nests in holes of rocks, whilst that ex-
quisitely beautiful bird, the Wall Creeper (Tichodroma
muraria), constructs its nests in rock crevices, an open
structure fabricated of moss and grasses and hairs,

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 111

and lined with wool and feathers. The equally
beautiful Rose-coloured Pastor (Pastor roseus), like
so many of the allied birds in the family Sturnide,
conceals its nest in clefts of rocks, or under heaps of
stones and loose rock fragments on mountain sides.
Rose-coloured Pastors breed in societies in various
parts of south-eastern Europe, but rarely if ever
return two seasons in succession to the same spot.
They place their cup-shaped nests in the crevices, or
under rocks and stones, making them externally of
dry grass, twigs, straws, stalks and moss, and lining
them with finer fibres, leaves, and in many cases
feathers. A great many of the species that nest
in rocks and under stones occasionally find a suit-
able site in holes of trees, whilst an even greater
number build their homes in holes of buildings, or
amongst masonry or earthworks of some kind. This
change of site, comparatively speaking, must have
occurred within recent times, and must be taken as
another example of that wonderful adaptability dis-
played by birds in the matter of their domestic
arrangements—another proof that reason is the
dominant impulse, and that blind instinct, so
popularly invoked as the guiding medium, is a totally
erroneous assumption with nothing tangible to sup-
port it. There are many other birds that have
become in a sense parasitic upon the dwellings or
other handiwork of man, although perhaps in every
instance the habit has not yet become complete,

112 BIRDS’ NESTS

certain individuals of each of these species still retain-
ing the normal methods, and serving as an indication
of the source whence the divergence has sprung. Thus
the Martins and Swifts and Jackdaws and Sparrows
that now crowd into man’s dwellings and masonry
still retain in many instances the habit of breeding in
cliffs, in caves and hollow trees, as no doubt all the
ancestral individuals did at some more or less remote
epoch. Possibly the habit may date its change from
the earliest era in which man commenced to make an
artificial shelter; and to this day there are certain
species as familiar with savage man, nesting in or
about his huts and rude dwelling-places, as others are
with his more civilised brother. The House Bunting
(Emberiza sahare) of Algeria is so familiar with the
Arabs that Canon Tristram tells us there are few
houses in the M’zab without a few pairs in their
courtyard, and I have also repeatedly remarked its
trustful familiarity about the mud-built houses of the
Arabs in the Tell and the Desert. Then, again, a
South African Swallow (Hirundo smithi) makes itself
equally at home with the Kaffirs, building its nest on
the roof-trees of their huts, and flying in and out
through the doorways, utterly oblivious to the crowds
of children playing near them.

Amongst the Pipits (Motacillide) there are some
occasional rock-builders, and others more or less
habitual ones. The Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis)
sometimes builds its artless little cup-shaped nest

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 113

under a flat stone. This nest is made externally of
moss and dry grass, and lined with finer fibres and
hairs. The Rock Pipit (A. obscurus), a dweller on the
sea coast, especially of the British Islands, finds a
very favourite nest site under a large flat stone, or in
a crevice of the rocks and cliffs close to the water.
This cup-shaped nest also varies considerably in its
materials, sometimes being entirely made of fine dry
grass; at other times this material is mixed with
moss, bits of dry seaweed, and stalks of plants.
Many nests are only lined with finer grass; others
are neatly finished with hair, and very exceptionally a
feather or two are introduced. Some of the Wagtails
(belonging to the same family as the pipits) are also
very partial to nesting under stones and in crevices of
rocks, making cup-shaped nests—more substantial, as
a rule, than those of the Pipits—of dry grass, straws,
stalks, twigs, roots, fibres, dry leaves, moss, and other
vegetable fragments, lined with finer fibres, hair, wool,
and feathers. It is noteworthy that some species of
Wagtails more habitually nest amongst vegetation on
banks, but their homes are generally well concealed;
whilst it is also worthy of remark that the rock-
nesting species have availed themselves in numbers
of instances of sites furnished by walls and other
masonry as well as the other handiwork of man
That beautiful Arctic bird, the Snow Bunting (Plectro-
phenax nivalis), must be my last example of rock and
stone builders. The nest of this species is carefully
H

114 BIRDS’ NESTS

hidden under heaps of loose stones and rocks, or in
crevices of the latter. For such a situation it is
exceptionally bulky, being cup-shaped, and made
externally of dry grass, moss, and roots, and warmly
lined with finer fibres, hair, wool, and feathers. No
doubt in prehistoric ages this was the Snow Bunting’s
only nesting-place, but in later eras it has availed
itself of piles of driftwood on the shores of the Polar
seas and rivers, and taken to hiding its pretty nest in
them.

We have now to deal with an equally important
assemblage of birds that conceal their nests in holes
in timber, or deposit their eggs in such spots without
making any other special provision for them. Some
of these timber-builders resort to such places as
alternative sites, nesting more or less frequently in
other concealed or covered situations, as in rocks,
in caves, or even in burrows. Others belong to
families or genera in which the timber-resorting
habit is more or less exceptional. It is also worthy
of remark that some of the gaudiest of avine forms
resort to such situations; whilst if the colour of the
eggs (or rather want of it) can be taken as any
indication, the habit of nesting in timber must be
one of great antiquity. As in the other divisions
of the present class of concealed or covered nest-
builders, we find examples of the habit scattered
through many and distantly related families and
orders; but although the habit is such a general

TREE SHOWING TYPICAL NEST OF A WOODPECKER.

SECTION OF BEECH

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 115

one, we shall find that it prevails much more
uniformly in some groups of birds than in others.
It will perhaps be most convenient to consider
first those groups in which the habit of breeding or
nesting in timber is most universal. One of the
most characteristic of these is the family of Wood-
peckers (Picidz). Woodpeckers are almost cosmo-
politan in their distribution (with the exception of
Madagascar and Egypt and the Australian region),
being inhabitants of all wooded areas from the Arctic
regions to the Equatorial forests. Broadly speaking,
their habits are very similar throughout this vast
area, and the method of preparing the procreant
cradle of one or two species will amply suffice for
the entire group. Probably it is the rule for these
birds to bore or excavate their own nesting holes
(which are frequently used for years in succession),
but in not a few instances ready-made ones are
selected, which are in some cases more or less altered
to suit the requirements of the Woodpeckers. Almost
every kind of timber is selected, and as a rule that
which is more or less decayed, even though covered
with a shell of sound wood, seems to be preferred.
To English readers the nest-holes of the Woodpeckers
inhabiting the British Islands are most familiar.
Perhaps the best known species is the Green Wood-
pecker (Gecinus viridis). The nest-hole of this bird,
made, by the way, in almost every kind of tree, is
circular, and usually follows a horizontal direction

116 BIRDS’ NESTS

for a short distance, then the perpendicular shaft is
bored for a foot or more, at the bottom of which a
slightly enlarged chamber forms the receptacle for
the eggs. So beautifully bored are these Wood-
pecker nests that it is difficult to believe they are the
work of a bird and not the result of a carpenter’s
gouge or similar sharp-edged tool. Both birds assist
in this wood-boring operation, male and female
working in turn until the hole is completed. It is
popularly believed that the chips and refuse are
carried away by the busy birds in order to prevent
discovery of their retreat, but such is not the case;
and one of the most unerring signs of tenancy is the
heap of such borings which gradually accumulate on
the ground below. We should also state that the
entrance hole is only just large enough to admit the
owners, the aperture increasing in size as the bottom
is reached. The extraordinary power of the Wood-
pecker’s bill, which is compressed and chisel-like,
enables the bird to excavate its dwelling with com-
parative ease. No further nest is made, the eggs
being laid on the powdered wood and chips at the
bottom of the hole, the birds evidently considering
that sufficient preparation has taken place in the
process of boring into the timber. Many of the larger
species bore into sound wood with ease, but our
British species, I believe, seldom or never attack any
but tainted timber—places where water has already
prepared a way through knot-holes, or old scars

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 117

where branches have been broken off. The Wrynecks
(lynginze) form a small group associated with the
Woodpeckers in the family Picidz, nest in a very
similar manner, but are not known to excavate their
own holes, selecting these ready made, or at most
altering them slightly to suit their requirements.
Their eggs are laid upon the powdered wood at the
bottom of the hole. As an instance of perverted
habit, 1 may mention that the Green Woodpecker’ has
been known to bore its hole into the wooden spire of
a church in Norway.

One of the difficulties with which we are confronted
in a work of the present character is that of classifica-
tion, a good deal depending upon the point of view
from which we deal with many types of nest. This is
especially the case with many hole breeding species in
the present class, not a few of which might with
almost equal propriety have been included with the
crudest nest-builders or even with nestless birds. I
have, however, decided to include them here although
alluding to some of them elsewhere, because they are
not only closely allied, but by seeking a ready made
hole they provide themselves with a cradle at least as
elaborate as other birds that excavate a similar hole
as in the case of the Woodpeckers.

The first of these to be dealt with here is the family
of Hornbills (Bucerotide), numbering upwards of sixty
species, distributed over the Ethiopian and Oriental
regions and entering the Australian region as far as

118 BIRDS’ NESTS

the Solomon Islands. The most remarkable feature
in these exceedingly curious birds is the bill, which is
furnished with a more or less developed casque.
Little less remarkable is the manner of their repro-
duction. These birds breed in holes in trees,! select-
ing one ready made for their purpose, and depositing
a single white egg on the powdered wood at the
bottom. So far all is perfectly normal, but now the
most extraordinary part of the business begins. As
soon as the hen bird commences to incubate, the cock
makes her a prisoner by plastering up the entrance
with mud, leaving, however, a small hole through
which he faithfully supplies her with food. Our
next group of hole nesters consists of the Toucans
(Rhamphastidz), numbering about sixty species, and
confined to South America and Central America as
far north as Mexico. The most striking feature in
these birds is the remarkably large and often beauti-
fully coloured bill, out of all proportion to the size
of the body. Toucans are forest birds, and, like the
Hornbills, select a suitable hole in some tree in which
to deposit their white eggs, for which no other pro-
vision is made. Another group of exquisitely beautiful
birds nesting in a similar manner is the Trogons
(Trogonidz). These birds are dwellers in the equa-
torial forests right round the world, and all of them,

1 The Ground Hornbill (Bucorvus abyssinicus) is said to build a
large nest of sticks in a tree standing alone (conf. Jézs, 1897,

p- 422).

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 119

so far as is known, seek shelter in some suitable hole
in a tree, where they incubate their two eggs. Then
we have the Barbets and the Honey Guides, together
forming the family Capitonidz, and numbering more
than one hundred species, distributed over the tropics,
and breeding in holes in trees which the latter select,
so far as I can ascertain, ready for the purpose, but the
former undoubtedly in many cases bore for themselves.
Our last most important assemblage in this class is the
extensive order of Parrots (Psittaciformes). Nearly
all these birds breed in holes in trees, which they choose
ready made. Some of these holes extend for long
distances into the timber. Mr D. Le Souéf records
that he found the eggs of the Crimson-winged Lory
(Ptistes coccineopterus), in Northern Australia, at the
bottom of a spout of a eucalyptus tree ten feet from
the entrance. Others (including some of the South
American Parraquets) resort to burrows in white ants’
nests. Parrots make no nest asa rule, but some of
the Australian Cockatoos make more elaborate pro-
vision. Thus Microglossus aterrimus chooses a hollow
in some tree and lines the bottom for some depth with
pieces of broken twigs from scrub trees, the apparent
reason being to preserve the single white egg from
the moisture that is apt to accumulate during tbe
rainy season—the period of its reproduction. The
Hoopoes (Upupidz) form another small group of hole
nesting species, but they are not absolutely confined
to holes in trees, occasionally using a hole in a wall

120 BIRDS’ NESTS

or other masonry. Hoopoes do not excavate the nest
hole, but they select one, frequently in a willow tree,
and in it often form a slight nest of straws, roots and
bits of dry cow-dung, but at other times lay their eggs
on the powdered wood alone. The nests of these
birds are perhaps the foulest and most evil-smelling
avine residences throughout the entire class. It is
worthy of remark that the male feeds the female
throughout the period of incubation, she rarely leaving
her charge, in this respect resembling the Hornbills, a
group to which the Hoopoes are thought by some
naturalists to be closely allied. Those beautiful
birds the Rollers (Coracidz) are typically breeders in
holes in trees, often annexing one made by a Wood-
pecker, where the eggs are deposited upon the
powdered wood at the bottom. When a hole in a
wall or bank, or a crevice in a rock is selected, the
bird apparently constructs a slight nest of dry grass,
roots, twigs, and a few feathers—possibly the relics
of the nest of some previous tenant of the place. An
Ethiopian species, Coracias caudatus, generally chooses
a hole in a baobab tree for a nesting place. Some of
the Swallows also resort to holes in trees (often
deserted ones of Woodpeckers) for nesting purposes,
such as Tachycincta albiventris, and certain species
in the genus Progne.

We now pass to the consideration of those species
that conceal their nests, not universally, but more or
less frequently in holes in timber. Some of the most

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 121

persistent of these timber haunting species are the
Titmice (Paridz). These little birds rarely appear to
make a hole for themselves, except in very rotten
wood, although there is no doubt that they will alter
one to some extent, as I have repeatedly watched
them carrying material out of holes and picking away
bits of plaster and the like from walls. Neither is their
choice of site confined to trees, for they are perhaps
even more partial to stumps in hedgerows, gateposts
and so forth. Some of the species with a remarkable
sense of adaptability conceal their nests in most
unlikely places, such as flower-pots, pumps, cupboards
or boxes placed in trees for their special accommoda-
tion; whilst their preference for walls and similar
artificial places shows how readily birds can avail
themselves of any new advantage in the matter of a
nesting site. For hole-builders the nests of the
Titmice are elaborate and well-made structures, cup-
shaped and composed of a great variety of materials
that are easily felted together, such as moss, wool,
hair, feathers, dry grass, leaves and so forth. As
illustrating the extreme complexity of the study of
birds’ nests, we have in the present group of birds
species (Acredula) that make elaborate globular nests
in branches, whilst at least one other Titmouse con-
structs two very distinct types of nest. This latter
bird, the Great Titmouse (Parus major), besides
making the usual cup-shaped nest in a hole, some-
times forms a beautiful globular nest of moss lined

122 BIRDS’ NESTS

with feathers, etc., which it places in the deserted
home of a Crow, Magpie, a Rook, or even in the old
drey of a squirrel. Again, some, but not all, of the
Nuthatches (Sittinz) more or less habitually resort
to holes in timber for nesting purposes, not, however,
boring these for themselves, but in most cases plaster-
ing up the entrance with mud, leaving a circular
entrance just large enough to admit the parent birds.
At the bottom of the selected hole a slight bed of dry
leaves and flakes of bark is arranged, and upon this
the eggs are deposited. The amount of plaster work
at the entrance varies considerably according to the
size of the hole. As many as eleven pounds of clay
have been found attached to one nesting site of the
Common Nuthatch (Sitia c@sia), in the side of a hay-
stack, this latter nest being still, I believe, in the
Natural History Museum at South Kensington.
Then some of the Plycatchers resort to holes in trees
for nesting purposes. One of the most familiar
species to British ornithologists is the Pied Flycatcher
(Muscicapa atricapilla), the nest of which is very
frequently built in a hole of a birch tree, often in the
deserted hole of a Woodpecker. The habit, however,
is not universal even in this single species, for the
bird on occasion finds a similar site in a hole in a
wall or a crevice of a rock. The nest is cup-shaped,
and made of dry grass, dead leaves, moss, wool,
hair and feathers, all more or less felted together.
Other allied birds nesting in a similar way are con-

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 123

tained in the genera Siphia and Cyornis. Again,
some of the Redstarts depart from what is, perhaps,
their more normal choice of a site in a wall or rock
crevice, and place their homes in holes of trees,
never, however, excavating these for themselves.
Starlings again very commonly resort to holes in
timber for nesting purposes, but these birds are very
adaptive, and seem ever ready to avail themselves of
any covered nook in which their slovenly cup-shaped
nest can be concealed. Likewise the Sparrows
(Passer) are just as eager to take possession of any
suitable hole in timber for a nest site, and this
peculiarity is by no means confined to the common
British House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), for the
Tree Sparrow (P. montanus, is just as adaptive, breed-
ing indiscriminately in holes in timber, in walls and
cliffs, in deserted nests of Crows and Magpies, as well
as under eaves and amongst thatch; whilst in China
another Mountain Sparrow (P. rutilans) evinces the
same partiality for holesintrees. Still more remark-
able, Mr J. Davidson records (Ibis, 1898, p. 18) that
the nest of Phylloscopus occipitalis is often placed in
holes of trees, as well as in holes in rocks, banks and
even in the ground or under stones— cup-shaped
structures made of green moss. Precisely the same
remarks apply to the Scops Owl (Scops scops), holes
in timber being preferred, but if not readily obtain-
able the bird contents itself with holes in walls.
Passing allusion may also be made to the various

124 BIRDS’ NESTS

species of Ducks (Anatidz) that resort more or less
regularly to holes in timber for breeding purposes.
Some of the most characteristic of these are the
Mandarin and Wood Ducks (Aix) of China and North
America respectively; the Golden-eyes (Clangula),
Buffel-headed Duck (Charitonetta), Hooded Mergan-
sers (Lophodytes), Goosanders (Merganser), and the
Smews (Mergus), all inhabitants of the Palzearctic and
Nearctic regions. None of these birds makes the
nest-hole for itself, and the eggs are deposited upon
the débris at the bottom, until they eventually
become surrounded by the characteristic coverlet of
down plucked from the parent’s body during the
course of incubation.

Then, again, we have to consider another very
extensive and heterogeneous group, in which the birds
conceal their nests more or less effectually in holes,
in or under banks or beneath tufts of vegetation.
Some of these nests, strictly speaking, come within
that division containing “Domed Nests,” and
must, therefore, be reserved for a future chapter;
but, on the other hand, a very considerable
number of them are open cup-shaped structures,
yet so cunningly and completely concealed that
the eggs and brooding bird are hidden from
all ordinary observation. By far the greatest number
of nests concealed in this manner are built by various
Passerine birds ; and as the number of species nesting
in this manner is so large, it would be practically im-

CONCEALED OR=COVERED NESTS 125

possible, with the limited space at our disposal, even
to give a mere list of them. All that we can do is
to illustrate the habit by quoting a few of the more
familiar examples. This habit is a very widely pre-
vailing one amongst Passerine species nesting upon
the ground, and is evidently practised primarily from
motives of concealment, or to ensure protection for
the procreant cradle and its contents, including the
incubating bird. We need not travel beyond the
limits of our own islands to obtain many striking
examples of such nests. Perhaps the most familiar
of all is that of the Robin (Evithacus rubecula). The
nest of this Robin more likely than not is built far
under some overhanging bank, whilst in other cases
the bird will gratify its desire for concealment by
seeking a site amongst dense ivy or exposed roots of
trees, or more exceptionally take possession of an old
can, orevena shed. The nest isa bulky structure made
of moss, dry grass, leaves and fibres of various kinds,
the cup being placed as far back under the cover as
possible, and formed of fine rootsand hairs. The nest
of the Nightingale (EZ. luscinia) is usually placed in
very similar spots on banks and amongst ivy, roots,
and drifts of dead leaves, and resembles that of the
Robin very closely in form and materials. Many of
the Buntings (Emberiza) build their nests in much the
same situations, whilst the Twite and the Ring Ouzel
not unfrequently seek similar spots. These are types
of which many examples are furnished by various

126 BIRDS’ NESTS

exotic species in almost every other part of the world,
but which it is not necessary to specify here. They
all illustrate the same interesting fact that such
situations are sought in a most intelligent manner
for the purpose of concealing an otherwise con-
spicuous nest.

The Mound Birds (Megapodiidz) furnish our last
examples of covered or concealed nests. In this
family are included, not only the typical Mound Birds,
but the Brush Turkeys and the Maleos. These
birds are distributed over most parts of Australia and
northwards among the various islands from New
Guinea to the Philippines, westwards possibly to the
Nicobars, although the species of the latter may not
be strictly indigenous. Unquestionably the method
of nesting adopted by the species in the present
family is not only unique, but the most extraordinary
of all known means of avine reproduction. Briefly,
the eggs are deposited in the sand, or in mounds con-
structed by the parent bird, and left without any more
attention on their part, the young being hatched by
artificial heat, and being fully feathered when they
break from the shell are able to fly almost as soon as
they reach the outer world. No less than twenty-six
species of these birds have been described in the
British Museum Catalogue of Birds and elsewhere.
These wonderful mound nests differ somewhat in
dimensions and materials, as well as in situation,
according to the species that form them. Some are

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 127

made close to the sea shore on sandy beaches; others
at varying distances inland in the forests. One or
two of these mounds may, with advantage, be de-
scribed in detail. That made by the Nicobar Mound
Bird (Megapodius nicobariensis) is described by Davison
as being made of dry leaves, sticks, etc., mixed with
earth, and from three to eight feet high and from
twelve to sixty feet in circumference, according to
its age. The eggs were buried from three to four
feet deep. He described the surface soil only of
these mounds as being dry; about a foot deep the
sand is slightly damp and cold; but deeper the sand
gets damper and the warmth increases. Another
species, Megapodius cumingi, forms a mound just
within the jungle above high-water mark of very
similar materials and some twenty feet in diameter,
the eggs being deposited at a depth of from one foot
to three feet, the ground round them being very hard.
Very similar remarks apply to the Megapodius mac-
gillivrayi, which forms the same kind of mound, about
five feet high and fifteen feet in diameter. Several of
the species (M. eremita, Eulipoa wallacii) excavate a
burrow in the sand, laying a single egg in each hole,
the latter then being sealed up with sand and the egg
left to hatch in due course. Another typical Megapode
(Megapodius duperreyi) forms a mound five feet high
and twenty feet in circumference of sand and shells
mixed with a little soil on the shore a few feet above
high-water mark, depositing the eggs in burrows six

128 BIRDS’ NESTS

feet deep, one egg being placed in each hole and the
earth carefully smoothed over the entrance. Another
mound of this species is described as being made en-
tirely of rich vegetable mould, fifteen feet high and
sixty feet in circumference; it contained a single egg
buried five feet below the surface. Lastly, the Lipoa
ocellata is somewhat different in its methods, appear-
ing to lay a clutch of eggs in the centre of the mound,
each stuck about three inches apart at the same depth
and in the form of a circle. The more aberrant Brush
Turkeys are, however, very similar in their domestic
arrangements. One of these, the Talegallus fusci-
rostris of ornithologists, constructs in the forest a
mound of earth, sticks and leaves in the form of a
truncated cone eleven feet high and twenty-five feet
in circumference, the eggs being laid in perpendicular
burrows about four feet in depth. Another species,
Catheturus lathami, builds a mound often six feet
high and from twelve to fourteen yards wide at the
base, at other times more conical. Of these mounds
Dr Ramsay writes: “The central position consists of
decayed leaves mixed with fine débris, the next of
coarser and less rotten materials; and the outside is
a mass of recently-gathered leaves, sticks and twigs
not showing signs of decay. In opening the nest
these are easily removed, and must be carefully
pushed backwards over the sides, beginning at the
top. Having cleared these and obtained plenty of
room, remove the semi-decayed strata, and below it,

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 129

where the fermentation has begun, in a mass of light,
fine leaf-mould, will be found the eggs placed with the
thin ends downwards, often in a circle, with three or
four in the centre about six inches apart. At one
side, where the eggs have been first laid, they will
probably be found more or less incubated, but in the
centre, where the eggs are placed last, quite fresh;
and if only one pair of birds have laid in the mound,
about twelve to eighteen eggs will be the complement,
and will be found arranged as described above. On
the other hand, if several females resort to the same
nest the regularity will be greatly interfered with, and
two or three eggs in different stages of development
will be found close to one another, some quite fresh,
others within a few days of being hatched. There
are usually ten eggs in the first layer, five or six in
the second, three or four only in the centre.” Lastly,
the Maleo (Megacephalon maleo), an inhabitant of the
forests on the Sanghir Islands and Celebes, comes
down in the breeding season to the sandy beaches,
often from forest haunts ten or fifteen miles away,
to deposit an egg periodically in a burrow in the loose
sand. Sometimes but one or two eggs are found in a
burrow, sometimes seven or eight, each egg placed at
a distance of six or eight inches apart, and each laid
by a separate bird.

With regard to the origin of this most extraordinary
method of reproduction, Dr Wallace has suggested
that it may be due primarily to certain peculiarities

I

130 BIRDS’ NESTS

in the organisation of these curious birds, which
necessitates a considerable period between the pro-
duction of each successive egg, an interval of three
months being required to produce eight eggs. That
the birds do produce their eggs at long intervals
(possibly a fortnight between each) seems to be
unquestionable, but this may be caused by the peculi-
arities of their nesting methods and not vice versa.
Reasoning by analogy Dr Wallace’s explanation,
ingenious as it certainly is, does not seem to us a
satisfactory one. The Mound Birds are considered
by anatomists to be morphologically the lowest in
the order Galliformes; and possibly their abnormal
methods of reproduction may represent an equally
archaic means of incubation, inherited from some
early avine ancestor, living in those remote eras
when the divergence between Aves and Reptilia
was not so wide as it is at the present time.

In bringing the present chapter to a close a few
general remarks seem necessary upon what we may
term the philosophical aspect of the whole subject
of concealed or covered nests. In the first place, we
may begin by repeating the axiom that a bird’s nest-
ing arrangements are in complete harmony, not only
with the peculiarities of its organisation but with the
special conditions of its existence. We may, there-
fore, fully rest assured that these nests dealt with in
the present chapter are concealed or covered from
some utilitarian motive. When we find certain means

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 131

adopted for concealment, common to more or less
extensive families or even orders of birds, it is not
difficult to suggest a general reason for them; but
in other groups, where these special means are less
frequent or even exceptional, we are often at a loss
to suggest any probable explanation. Diverse, how-
ever, as are the methods of concealment adopted by
the species described in the present chapter, the same
great end is gained. On the one hand we must take
into consideration the fact that a very large propor-
tion of the birds that rear their young in these con-
cealed or covered nesting places are very conspicuous
in colour, and also that their eggs are white, or at
least very pale in general coloration. Both showy
parent and conspicuous egg require concealment, and
this is obtained in that variety of ways the present
chapter has sought to describe. For instance, the
Kingfishers, the Jacamars, and Bee-eaters are excep-
tionally gaudy birds, and all lay white eggs; hence
we may very naturally attribute their burrowing
habits to a necessity for concealment during the
comparatively helpless period of incubation. Then
we have the equally showy Woodpeckers, Hornbills,
Toucans, Trogons, Parrots, Rollers, and so on, which
seek a similar immunity from danger in holes of
timber. Then, again, we have various other groups
of species that nest in concealed or covered situations
from other motives. The Petrels, for instance, are a
group in which crepuscular or nocturnal habits almost

132 BIRDS’ NESTS

universally prevail. This peculiarity necessitates these
birds seeking dark retreats during daylight. Hence
they may possibly have excavated burrows or sought
hiding places in caves and crevices or under rocks
and stones, not for a nest in the first place (as seems
proved by the spotted eggs), but for a refuge from the
light. We can then readily understand how the eggs
became to be laid in such spots, and the incessant
period of incubation (day and night without ceasing)
passed in the only comfortable manner. Then as
regards many other species which nest in covered
sites we may fairly assume that the habit has been
acquired to evade special enemies rather than to
conceal a showy plumage, as, for instance, in the
Chats. This is more particularly the case in groups
where the nest is not universally concealed, as in the
Flycatchers, the elusion of some danger, or the con-
cealment of some exceptional bright or conspicuous
plumage in families or genera where dull colours
generally prevail, being the ruling motive. Whether
the eggs in such cases are spotted or white and
colourless is a good and reliable indication of these
isolated instances of a changed method of repro-
duction to escape certain dangers or better to
conform to some altered condition of existence.
Bearing these facts in mind I do not think that
we are justified in considering holes (with the possible
exception of the Ratitze and the Mound Birds) as an
archaic method of nesting, but rather as the best

CONCEALED OR COVERED NESTS 133

method of reproduction that a probably long and
continuous natural selection has evolved. Judged
by analogy there is not a single species of hole-
breeding bird (we more particularly allude to those
species that make no preparation by way of nes?)
that we could feel justified in describing as not fully
equipped for producing a more complicated type of
architecture if such were necessary. Not only so,
but the very fact that we often find a more or less
elaborate nest constructed in these holes and crevices
seems conclusively to prove that birds have adopted
such methods for some special reason, and which is
still further confirmed by the fact that in many of
such cases we find nearly allied birds making similar or
equally elaborate nests in open situations. In many
of these instances of covered or concealed nests the
nest-building habit might almost be regarded as in a
transitional state at the present time, and in such
cases the coloured eggs are an additional confirmation
of the fact. Who, for instance, could doubt that the
Puffin or the Chough once occupied open sites for
nest-building when examining the faintly-marked eggs
of these birds; or, on the other hand, fail to see in
the white and shining eggs of the Woodpecker and
the Kingfisher a certain sign of the long-continued
endurance of the present methods of reproduction?
We are confronted with precisely similar phenomena
when we come to deal with domed nests, but we must
reserve their consideration for a later chapter. Inci-

134 BIRDS’ NESTS

dentally we may remark that the eggs of not a few
of these species building concealed or covered nests
show a strongly-defined tendency to paleness or loss
of coloration when compared with the eggs of other
species in the same family or genus that are incu-
bated in more open structures. The eggs of the
Robin, as compared with those of the Nightingale, or
those of the Pied Flycatcher with those of the Spotted
Flycatcher, may be taken as illustrative instances.

CHAPTER V

OPEN NESTS

135

CHAPTER V

OPEN NESTS

Open Nests a widely prevailing type—Nests of certain Geese—Nest of the
Screamer—Nests of Curassows, Guans, and the Hoatzin—Of Bonaparte’s Gull
—Classification of ‘‘Open” nests—Nests of the Albatrosses—Of the Herons and
Bitterns—Of the Spoonbills and Ibises—Of the Storks—Nests of the Pelecani-
formes—Of the Gannets—Of the Cormorants—Of the Darters—Of the Pelicans
—Of the Frigate Birds—Of the Flamingoes—Of the Cranes—Of the Rails and
Finfoots—Nests of various Falconiformes—Of the Vultures—Of certain Eagles
—Of the Kites—Of the Hawks and Harriers—Of the Ospreys—Nests of the
Humming Birds—Of certain Swifts—Of the Colies—Nests of the Passeriformes
—Of Crows and Allied Birds—Of the Birds of Paradise—Of the Drongos—Of
the Orioles—Open Nest of a Hangnest—Of the Tanagers—Of the Finches and
Allied Birds—Of the Larks—Of the Wagtails and Pipits—Of the American
Wood Warblers—Of the Honey Eaters—Of the White-eyes—Of certain Flower
Peckers—Of the Goldcrests—Of the Bearded Titmouse—Of the Shrikes—Of
the Waxwings—Of the Vireos—Of the Thrushes—Of the Whinchat—Of the
Warblers—Of the Mocking Birds—Of the Timeliide—Of the Tailor Birds—Of
the Laughing Thrushes—Of the Bulbuls—Of the Cuckoo Shrikes—Of certain
Flycatchers—Of certain Swallows—Of the Tyrant Birds—Of the Chatterers
—Of the Ant Thrushes—Of the Pteroptochidae —General Remarks on the
Open or Cup-shaped Type of Nest—Mimicry in Nest-building.

THERE can be little doubt that an open nest is the
normal type of avine architecture, not only because
it is by far the most widely prevailing, but also the
most convenient for the ordinary methods of repro-
duction. It may be found more or less frequently
in almost every great group into which birds have
been divided by systematists. In our review of open
nests, however, we shall find that the type is subject
137

138 BIRDS’ NESTS

to an immense amount of modification, and presents
an almost endless diversity, not only in the materials
of which it is composed, but in the situation in which
it is placed. We shall find that the type, although
always “open,” presents every possible amount of
variation in form from that of a shallow saucer to
a deep cup, and from the size of a walnut to a
gigantic structure containing a cartload or more of
material, the latter varying from the softest downs
and mosses to sticks and branches several inches in
circumference. Its position is none the less variable,
for we shall find it in almost every conceivable situa-
tion, in trees and bushes, amongst grasses, aquatic
vegetation, and herbage of all kinds, as well as on
rocks and the ground, or even in water, upon the
surface of which it in some cases safely floats.

In the first place, it may be-as well to deal with
a few of those simpler forms of open nests made
by species belonging to groups already noticed, such
as the Anseriformes, Galliformes, and Lariformes, in
which the predominant type of procreant cradle is
acrude one. The Grey-lag Goose (Anser cinereus), for
instance, generally constructs a huge nest—three feet
in diameter at the base, and upwards of a foot in
height—of branches and twigs of heather, dead rushes
and reeds, dry grass, bracken leaves, and turf, and
lined with moss, to which is added, as incubation
advances, a thick bed of down and feathers. This
open nest is built upon the ground amongst tall

OPEN NESTS 139

heather or rank vegetation in swamps. Other
species of Geese make equally elaborate nests.
Then the nests of the Swans are elaborate and
bulky—great conical heaps of dead reeds, rushes,
dry grass, straw, twigs and turf, lined with finer
materials and a few down flakes and feathers. A
nest of Bewick’s Swan, discovered by Mr Battye in
Kolguev, was a huge conical heap of moss with a
shallow cavity at the top for the eggs. Incidentally,
we may mention that Swans possess the habit
common to various other birds of adding to their
nests from time to time during the whole period of
tenancy, probably for the purpose of protecting it
from any sudden rise in the water level. Then the
Screamer (Palamedea cornuta) of South America, an
aberrant Anserine form, constructs an open nest of
rushes, the foundation of which is in the water.
Some of the most elaborate nests of the Galliformes
are constructed by certain species of Curassows,
Guans, and the Hoatzin. These are placed in more
or less lofty trees in the forests, and are composed
of sticks and twigs with a rough lining of dry grass
and leaves. Other species nest in parts of the tree
trunks where leaves have accumulated in the forks
of several branches, making no further provision for
their eggs. Respecting the nest of the only known
species of Hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoazin), Mr J. J.
Quelch writes: “The nests, which are made solely
of a slightly concave mass of dried twigs and sticks

140 BIRDS’ NESTS

taken from the plants on which they are built, and
loosely laid on top and across each other, are placed
in conspicuous positions high up over the water or
soft mud, on the top of or amongst the bushy
growth, where they are fully exposed to the direct
sunshine. ... From the binding nature of the spiny
twigs the nests last for a considerable time, and these
are certainly made use of again, possibly after more
or less repair. The same nest has been found in use
after an interval of seven months.” The two or three
eggs are very similar in appearance to those of the
Corn Crake—double spotted—a fact which indicates
a more distant relationship with the true Galliformes
than many systematists seem to suspect. Lastly,
we may deal here with the nest of Bonaparte’s
Gull (Larus philadelphia), This North American gull
almost invariably appears to nest in trees and tall
bushes. It makes a substantial nest in the branches
composed externally of sticks, and lined with dry
grass, moss, lichen, and bits of dry reed. Several
nests are often made in a single tree.

In the present chapter, instead of classifying nests
according to the peculiarities of their situation, it will
be better to confine ourselves, as far as possible, to a
taxonomic arrangement, not only because there is a
great similarity in the general plan of these open
nests (although the materials are diverse enough), but
almost every description of site may be met with in
each group (in not a few cases even in the same

OPEN NESTS 141

species). As we have already seen, the type of an
open nest very generally prevails amongst the crude
nest-forms, so that it will not be necessary to notice
these again, but confine our observations to such nests
as are of more or less elaborate architecture.
Beginning with the lower groups in the avine
system, we must revert once again to that order
which includes the Petrels and termed Procellarii-
formes. In this order the nests of the Albatrosses
must be included in the present chapter. We have
already had occasion to describe various types of nest
in this assemblage of birds, none of them being very
elaborate; those of the Albatrosses, however, are
much better made. Five species of these birds
apparently resort to lonely Kerguelen Island for
nesting purposes, returning to the old colonies year
by year, and in some cases at least using the same
homes each recurring season. The nests of several
of these species have been described by Mr R. Hall,
and from his notes we derive the following particulars.
The favourite breeding grounds of the Great Albatross
(Diomedea chionoptera) appeared to be undulating
ground near a low beach, the cliffs not being so much
in request. In no less than three large colonies, as
well as in the case of isolated pairs, the nests were
usually built within fifty feet above sea-level. Some
of the nests were quite out of sight of the sea, half a
mile inland, and on ground where ridges and small
fresh water lakes intervened. The nests were made

142 BIRDS’ NESTS

of peaty grass intermixed with fibrous earth, the bowl
or cup at the top being lined or “matted” with
natural short grass. Some of the nests were conical
and had well-trimmed sides of earth. Three or four
of the nests were made within a couple of yards of
each other, but more often they were many yards
apart, and continued in a line along the higher
grounds of the beach. Mr Hall gives as the average
dimensions of these nests—thirty-seven inches in
breadth, eighteen inches diameter of bowl, and five
inches as depth of latter, and two inches the thickness
of the lining. The Sooty Albatross breeds on the hills.
Three of its nests were examined by this.gentleman
on Murray Island in Royal Sound. Two of these
were built within three feet of each other, whilst the
other was several hundreds of yards away. All were
made under ledges of rocks, some three hundred feet
high and facing the sea. These nests were neat saucer-
like structures composed of caked fine fibrous loam,
and measured seventeen inches in breadth, the cavity
twelve inches in diameter and three inches deep, the
depth of the whole structure being about four inches.
Dr Kidder describing the nest of this Albatross in the
same locality states that one was made upon a shelf
formed by tufts of cabbage and azorella at the en-
trance of a small cavity in the face of a lofty cliff near
the top of a hill. The nest was a conical mound
seven or eight inches high, hollowed into a cup at the
top and lined rudely with grass. Some of the nests

OPEN NESTS 143

are built as many as four miles inland. I may
here remark that I shall have occasion to notice
several more of these mud made nests belonging to
very distantly related orders, as the review of open
nests progresses.

The nests of that order of birds which includes the
Herons, the Storks, Ibises, and so forth (Pelargiformes),
come next under. consideration. These are generally
large structures, built in a variety of situations rang-
ing from the ground to the branches of trees and the
ledges of precipices. These birds naturally divide
themselves into a number of groups, the nests in
which are more or less different and characteristic.
We will now proceed to describe a representative
selection from these. It should be mentioned, how-
ever, that many species in this order build several
types of nest according to the site in which it is
placed, the birds accommodating themselves to cir-
cumstances in the usual manner, and evincing an
amount of intelligence in the construction of their
utilitarian cradles. Thus the Purple Heron (Ardea
purpurea), when it breeds in trees, makes a large open
nest of sticks, but when in reed beds the nest is built
upon a trodden-down mass of aquatic vegetation, and
is chiefly composed of broken bits of reed and similar
plant fragments gathered from the marshes around.
The typical nest made by a Heron in a tree usually
consists of a bulky flat mass of interlaced branches
and twigs, the slight hollow in the centre occasionally

144 BIRDS’ NESTS

being lined with turf and moss. Our own Common
Heron (Ardea cinerea) constructs such a nest, and the
same type is used when it is situated on a ledge of a
cliff. Gregarious habits largely prevail amongst this
order of birds during the breeding season, and num-
bers of nests are built close together, not only in
trees, but on the ground in marshes. They are also
social birds, and very often several species may be
found breeding in the same chosen spot. We find
the same double type of nest amongst the Egrets, the
one being a platform-like mass of sticks and twigs,
sometimes with the leaves still attached, placed in a
tree or large bush; the other equally bulky, but com-
posed of dead reeds and fragments of other aquatic
vegetation. The same remarks equally apply to the
Cattle Herons, the Night Herons, the Squacco Herons,
and so forth. Seebohm records that a peculiarity in
the nests of the last-named species and those of the
Little Egret (Ardea garzetta) and the Night Heron
(Nycticorax griseus) that he met with during a visit
to the great colonies of Herons in the valley of the
Danube was that all the twigs radiated from the
centre, but that those of the Common Heron were
built in the normal way, the sticks being arranged
round the centre in the form of arcs. The Bitterns
are more uniform in their type of architecture,
although even here there are occasional instances of
the dual form of nest. These birds are much less
social and gregarious than the typical Herons, gene-

OPEN NESTS 145

rally breeding in isolated pairs, although there is
some evidence to suggest reproduction in colonies by
the American Bittern (Botaurus ‘lentiginosus). The
typical nest is made upon the spongy ground in
swamps, and is a flat basket-like structure of dead
flags, rush leaves and reeds, the finer materials being
reserved for the shallow central depression which
contains the eggs. The amount of material used
depends a good deal upon the exact location of the
nest, those in the wettest spots being almost in-
variably the bulkiest. The Little Bittern (Botaurus
minutus) sometimes builds a nest firmly moored to
reeds growing in the water, and may then almost
be described as a floating structure. Bitterns are
said occasionally to make a flat nest of sticks, twigs,
coarse grass and leaves in the branches of trees, but
this must be very exceptional. The Spoonbills (Plata-
leidze) and the Ibises (Ibididz) are very similar in their
nest-building methods, and, as usual, we find a double
type, one placed on the ground in swamps, the other
on more or less lofty trees or large bushes. These
birds, like the Herons, are more or less gregarious.
Spoonbills nest in swamps, on the shallow margins
of lakes, and in dense water-logged forests of alder
and willow and in other trees by the side of water,
returning each season to certain spots for the purpose
of reproduction. When made in branches the nest
consists of a large pile of sticks more or less care-
lessly interlaced, the cavity containing the eggs being
K

146 BIRDS’ NESTS

generally lined with dry grass. When built in swamps
it is less carefully constructed yet substantial, and
largely composed of dead reeds, rush leaves and a
few sticks, and lined with dry grass. The tree nests
are generally the largest, being several feet in
diameter and a foot or more in thickness, the cup,
however, being more or less flat and shallow. Almost
precisely the same remarks apply to the cradles of
the Ibises, but these birds are more addicted to
building in trees, their nests being chiefly composed
of sticks and bits of reed and turf. They are not
quite so gregarious and social, although often found
breeding in company with allied birds. Some species,
such as the Hagedash Ibis (Gevonticus hagedash),
although gregarious at other times, are said to
separate into pairs during the breeding season. The
Storks (Ciconiidz) make nests of a very similar type,
but never on the ground, placing them on trees, cliffs,
and buildings, the latter sites having been selected
more recently, as we have found to be the case with
so many other birds. Some of the Storks are very
familiar birds, breeding on homesteads, and ex-
ceptionally tame and confiding, because they are
never molested; indeed, in some countries, they are
objects of veneration, and held sacred by the inhabi-
tants. They are more or less gregarious, and return
with unerring certainty to their old haunts season
after season. The White Stork (Ciconia alba), for
instance, builds its nest indiscriminately upon the

OPEN NESTS 147

roof of a house, a mosque or even on the capitol of a
ruined pillar, as well as on the ledge of a precipice or
in the branches of a tree. As the nest is returned to
each year, it gradually increases in size, some of the
structures consisting of huge piles of sticks six feet
high, and four or five feet across. The sticks are
more or less intermingled with lumps of earth and
vegetable matter, whilst the hollow at the top is lined
with an immense assortment of soft materials, such
as dry grass, feathers, straws, masses of hair and
wool, moss and such curious odds and ends as rags
and paper. On the other hand, the Black Stork
(C. nigra) is much more seclusive in its habits,
delighting to nest in large forests or woods close
to marshes. It returns each season to the old
locality and consequently the nest becomes a very
large one during the course of years. The nest is
usually made in a tree, but occasionally a convenient
site ina cliff is selected for it. This nest is a huge
flat structure of sticks, as much as six feet across,
the shallow cavity containing the eggs being lined
with green moss, the latter always being renewed
each season. Here I may remark that one of the
most curious known nests is made by the Hammer-
head (Scopus umbretta), an aberrant member of the
present group, but, as it does not come within the
division of * open nests,” ] must reserve a descrip-
tion for a future chapter (conf. p. 210).

We now pass on to the consideration of the nests

148 BIRDS’ NESTS

of another somewhat extensive and heterogeneous
group of birds, the Pelecaniformes, in which are
included the Gannets, Cormorants, Pelicans, Tropic
Birds, Darters and Frigate Birds. Some of these
species (the Tropic Birds), as we have already seen,
are absolutely nestless, yet many of the others con-
struct more or less elaborate open nests—which still
further emphasises the fact that affinity is not
necessarily any indication of uniformity in the type
of nest, the latter being influenced, we might almost
say, entirely by the conditions of life of each indi-
vidual species. Although many of the nests in this
order of birds cannot be described as elegant—in
fact, most of them are more or less offensive, owing
to the ways of life of their builders—they are, on the
whole, fairly well made. Yet even these remarks
cannot be taken in too literal a sense, for we shall
find considerable difference in the degree of finish even
in the nests of species belonging to the same genus,
and occupying almost precisely: the same localities.
This is one of the most interesting facts that confront
the caliologist during the course of his investigations.

First, then, we have to consider the nests of the
Gannets (Sulidz). These birds are gregarious, and
resort in vast numbers each recurring season to some
rock-bound isle to rear their young. Seven species
are known; the majority of these are found in the
tropics, two inhabit the Southern Hemisphere, whilst
another is confined to the North Atlantic basin.

OPEN NESTS 149

This latter species is the Gannet (Suda bassana), which
breeds in such abundance at St Kilda, the Bass Rock,
Sulisker in the Hebrides, and a few other places.
The nest of this bird may best be described as a
flattened cone with a cavity at the top for the single
egg. This may be built almost anywhere amongst
the cliffs, on ledges, in crevices, and amongst the
broken rocks at the summit. Numbers of nests are
built close together, in some colonies almost every
available spot being occupied. The bulk of the nest
materials consists of sea weed, turf, straws, tufts of
moss, and stalks of marine plants, the whole being
matted and caked together almost into a mortar-like
mass, and thickly coated with slime, droppings, and
remains of fish. The cavity is shallow, and the whole
structure may be a foot or more in height, but
some nests are much trodden out of shape by their
apparently indifferent owners—a proceeding which
often necessitates repairs and additions during the
progress of incubation. The noisy stirring panorama
of a Gannet’s breeding-place during the height of the
season forms one of the most remarkable scenes in
bird-life. Another species of Gannet (Sula piscator)
which breeds on the Fanning group of islands in the
North Pacific presents several features of exceptional
interest, inasmuch as the birds’ habits vary con-
siderably according to locality. On Palmyra Island,
according to the observations of Dr Streets, the
birds build their nests on low trees, constructing

150 BIRDS’ NESTS

them of coarse twigs. On Christmas Island the
Gannets have a very curious habit of breaking off all
the twigs within reach of their bill and dropping
them under the nests as they sit incubating. These
mounds were from one to two feet high, and in some
cases solidly cemented together by excrement. We
should mention that the nests in the latter locality
are made in shrubberies of low stunted bushes. As
another type of nest in this group we have that of the
Sula cyanops, which is also made on Christmas Island.
This nest is nothing but a slight concavity scratched
out in the fine coral sand, and might very aptly be
included in the series of crudest nest-forms.

From the nests of the Gannets we pass to a con-
sideration of those of the Cormorants (Phalacro-
coracidz). These differ largely, even belonging to
the same species, not only in materials but in
position. The Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) of
the British Islands, for instance, makes several types
of nest according to locality. This bird breeds not
only upon marine cliffs, small sea-girt islands and
reefs, but also on the ground and on trees and
rocks inland, miles away from salt water. When
near the sea, either on the ground or cliffs, it is
usually a pile of seaweed and stalks of marine
plants, the cavity lined with fresh green thrift, sea
parsley and campion, the whole structure being
from one to several feet high. When built inland
on cliffs it is generally as large and formed on the

OPEN NESTS 151

same model of sticks and twigs, lined with green
herbage; or if the breeding-place is near reed-beds,
broken reeds are often intermixed with the sticks.
Lastly, when built in trees the nest is chiefly com-
posed of a huge mass of sticks, the cavity being
lined with green herbage. The whole structure is
more or less coated with droppings and remains of
fish. The nests of the Shags have already been
alluded to, as they generally occupy a covered site.
Cormorants, we should say, are more or less
gregarious during the breeding season, some of their
colonies containing many hundreds of nests, and
these places are used season after season. The
nests of the nearly allied Snake Birds, or Darters
(Plotidz), are very similar, generally being placed
on trees and formed of sticks, the cavity being
lined with roots and moss. These curious birds, of
which but three or four species are known, are
tropical or sub-tropical in distribution, and are found
round the world in these latitudes. They have the
same gregarious and social habits as their allies.
The nests of the Pelicans (Pelecanidz) do not differ
in type from those of the other birds in this order,
and are either made upon the ground amongst reeds
in marshes, or placed upon trees. Nor do we find
anything exceptional in the nesting arrangements
of the Frigate Birds (Fregatide). But two species
are known confined to the tropics and the Southern
Hemisphere. These birds make rather slight nests

152 BIRDS’ NESTS

of sticks, etc., in the mangrove trees and bushes,
building in societies, as is generally the case.

As we have already dealt exhaustively with the
nests of the species included in the order Anseri-
formes, we may now pass them by, with one important
exception, however. The Flamingoes (Phoenicopteridz)
are included in that order, and their nests being
open structures may be conveniently described now.
The nests of these curious birds again illustrate the
fact so often brought before us in our study of
avine architecture, that many types of nests prevail
amongst closely allied groups, each type presenting
some special feature of adaptiveness to equally
special conditions of life. No more _ beautiful
instance perhaps could be furnished. Flamingoes
breed on vast mud flats, on low islands, and the
flat shores of lagoons and lakes where the water
is not only shallow, but often subject to periodical
change of level. No better nests than those made
by these birds could be imagined in such a locality.
They are simply conical pillars of mud with a
shallow cavity at the top for the eggs. When
built on dry mud the nests may be little more than
rings, or rather “soup plates” of mud, a few inches
above the level of the ground; but in other cases
they are constructed in shallow water a foot or more
in depth, and then they rise from the bottom and
tower six or eight inches, or even more, above the
surface. These birds also breed in colonies of

FLAMINGO AND NEST.

OPEN NESTS 153

varying size, and their nests are scattered thickly
over the chosen spot, sometimes a deep hollow filled
with muddy water marking the common spot where
the materials for the nests have been gathered.
Next in order of sequence we have to consider the
open nests of the Cranes and various allied birds
associated under the term Gruiformes. Here again
we find not a little divergence in the character of the
nest to accommodate it to the peculiarities of the site.
Some of the nests, as we have already indicated, must
be classified as crude; others, however, are massive
and elaborate, both types occurring in some cases in
the same species, according to the place on which
they rest. We may take as our typical Crane’s nest
that of the Common Crane (Grus cinerea). Cranes
breed in scattered pairs in vast swamps and salt
marshes, and the size of the nest depends upon the
nature of the ground, the wetter the district the
larger the structure. The larger nests tower high
above the shallow water or swampy ground, and are
made of sedges, rushes, branches and twigs, and lined
with grass. The smaller ones, generally resting on
grass-clothed mud, are low flat structures of beaten
down herbage—mats several inches in thickness and
about eighteen inches across. The smallest nests of
all are those situated on the dry hummocks, and are
little more than trampled hollows lined with pieces of
dead vegetation. Then the nest of the Demoiselle
Crane (G. virgo) is described as being a very slight

154 BIRDS’ NESTS

structure—placed amongst grain or grass or on the
rocky banks of rivers—a mere hollow trodden in the
ground and scantily lined with bits of vegetation ; but
there may be a more elaborate type constructed if the
nature of the ground demands such. Cranes, in some
cases at least, return to the old nest each season,
adding to and renovating it as required. The
more aberrant Limpkins (Aramidz) and Trumpeters
(Psophiidz) build open nests upon the ground.

The nests of the somewhat nearly allied Rails and
Finfoots (Ralliformes) come next for consideration.
Some of these birds are said to breed in burrows,
and hence fall naturally in a previous chapter;
others make spherical nests and must be reserved
for a future one; but the majority of species in-
cubate their eggs in open structures and therefore
come into the present division. There is a remark-
able similarity between the nests of the various
groups—such as Rails, Crakes, Moorhens, Gallinules,
Coots, and so forth—into which the order may be
naturally sub-divided, due unquestionably to the same-
ness of the conditions of reproduction and the haunts
affected. There are, however, many indications of
great intelligence in the architectural efforts of these
birds—their skill in sub-aquatic building, in the con-
struction of floating nests, and their wonderful
adaptiveness in seeking to evade the perils surround-
ing such a method of reproduction being of great
interest, not only to the professed caliologist but to

OPEN NESTS 155

the ordinary observer of bird life. These birds, all
the world over, are dwellers in wet localities, marshes.
swamps, and dense thickets of reeds and other vegeta-
tion on the banks of rivers, broads and ponds. Their
open nests are generally well concealed amongst such
vegetation, and owing to the wet or damp nature of
the ground are bulky structures. They are formed of
rushes, flags, reeds, and dry grasses, the finer materials
being used to line the flat shallow cavity containing
the eggs. The foundation of many of these nests is
under shallow water, the birds piling up materials
from the bottom and forming the nest proper when
the structure has been raised above the level of the
surrounding water. Other nests are literally floating
in water too deep for such a preliminary preparation,
large rafts of dead and rotten aquatic vegetation upon
which a dryer stratum of materials supports the egg
cavity at the top. These nests are often ingeniously
moored to the stems of reeds and flags and other
plants, the materials being deftly wound round them.
The bulk of some of these aquatic nests is enormous.
Nests of the Giant Coot (Fulica gigantea), found in
Chili, are described by Mr Ambrose Lane as composed
of materials enough to fill a horse-cart, the part above
water being about one yard in diameter. Another
species (F. leucoptera) breeding in the same country
also builds a floating nest. We shall also find that
these raft-like homes are made by distantly related
birds of another order but with similar conditions of

156 BIRDS’ NESTS

life—another proof that similarity of nest-type is very
often due to analogy and not to affinity. The nest of
the well-known Corn Crake (Crex pratensis) demands
a few special words of description. The haunts of
this species differ considerably from those usually
frequented by birds in the present order, and the
nest just as unerringly reflects the fact. Corn Crakes
generally resort to dry ground for breeding purposes,
making their nests in meadow grass or amongst fields
of growing grain. Aquatic vegetation is therefore
discarded in their architecture, and the bird forms a
well-made nest of dry grass, bits of moss and a few
dead leaves, about as big as an ordinary soup plate.
The cavity is remarkably neatly lined with the finest
grass, much of it half green. Then as an instance of
adaptability we may mention the home of the Moorhen
(Gallinula chloropus). The nest of this bird may either
be a floating raft at some distance from the bank on
deep water amongst reeds and flags, or on dry ground
under brambles and coarse vegetation; or it may even
be built many feet above the ground in the branches
of trees or placed on a flat branch close to the water,
in either case being safe from any sudden rising of the
pool. Rails are frequently known to add materials to
their nests after the eggs have been laid—a habit
common to not a few aquatic species, this means
being adopted to prevent waste from the action of the
water and to increase the stability of the structure.
Of the nidification of the Finfoots (Heliornithidz)

OPEN NESTS 157

nothing appears to be known, but there are facts
which seem to suggest a great divergence from the
normal Rail methods of reproduction. We may also
state that generally the Rails are more or less solitary
during the breeding season, but social tendencies are
not infrequent amongst such forms as the Moorhens
and Coots.

Passing over the Game Birds, Sand-Grouse, Pigeons,
Bustards, Plovers, Sandpipers, etc., Gulls and Auks, the
nesting arrangements of which having already been
dealt with, we have now to consider the nests of such
raptorial birds (Falconiformes) as come within the
limits of the present chapter. Here we are con-
fronted with a great amount of variation in the
degree of architectural skill. Some species, as we
have already seen, are practically of non-nest-building
habits, but annex the deserted homes of other birds
(conf. p. 47); others are included in the chapter deal-
ing with the crudest nest-forms. On the other hand,
many of the species in this order construct more or
less elaborate open nests, and these we will proceed
briefly to describe. Beginning first with the Vultures,
we shall find a most remarkable variation in the nest-
ing methods. Some of these birds make no nest
whatever, or only the slightest provision for their
eggs; or they may annex the deserted home of
another bird as the Egyptian Vulture frequently does.
Others, however, build large and elaborate structures.
The Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus), for instance, breeds

158 BIRDS’ NESTS

on precipices, and constructs a huge nest (the largest
structures being the accumulation of many years) of
sticks, branches, twigs, lined with dry grass, leaves,
and dead palmettoes. Some of these nests are very
well finished, the bowl being fifteen inches or more
across and four or five inches deep. Then the nest
of the Old World Black Vulture (Vultur monachus) is
made on the spreading summit of some lofty giant
pine tree, and consists of an enormous platform of
sticks often eight feet in diameter, the depression
in the centre being lined with tufts of fine grasses
plucked from the ground below. Such a nest, after
it has once been reached, would admit of a man
standing in safety upon it. Another similarly
enormous nest is made by the Bearded Vulture or
Lammergeyer (Gypaetus barbatus), a species breeding
in various mountain ranges in the south of Europe
and Asia. This nest is built upon inaccessible ledges
of cliffs, and is formed of sticks and branches, and
lined with grass, wool, hair, and similar materials.
Then, again, the Eagles are elaborate nest-builders,
constructing their eyries on cliffs and trees, or even
on the ground, and tenanting them for years in suc-
cession. They are made on much the same general
plan as the preceding, being huge piles of sticks,
somewhat flat, and several feet in diameter. One of
their peculiarities is the presence of green leaves in
the lining, which in addition consists of coarse grass,
wool, turf, and so forth. Possibly the typical Eagles

OPEN NESTS 159

(Aquila) are most addicted to building in trees; the
Sea Eagles (Haliaétus) being more partial to cliffs,
although some of these birds may be said habitually
to nest in trees also, as, for instance, Pallas’s Sea
Eagle (H. leucoryphus), which in India, at all events,
generally constructs its huge nest of sticks lined with
leaves in the forking branches of a pipal tree, near to
some jheel. Then, again, the American Bald Eagle
(H. leucocephalus) constructs a huge nest of sticks,
some six feet in diameter, lined with grass, on some
lofty tree, but occasionally this species nests on the
ground of a small island, and in such cases it is very
slight, a few sticks covered with food refuse. The
American Harpy Eagles (Thrasaétus) also nest indis-
criminately upon trees or cliffs, and make equally
elaborate structures. The Buzzards (Buteoninze) are
builders of similar big nests composed primarily of
sticks occasionally mixed with turf, and variously
lined with finer twigs, strips of bark, dry grass, roots,
weeds, and moss. Here, again, a green lining either
of leaves or twigs, with green buds on them, is in
many cases provided. These nests are made in trees
of varying heights, or upon ledges of cliffs. The Kites
(Milvinze) differ very little in their nesting arrange-
ments, choosing precisely similar sites, but the lining
is very characteristic, usually consisting of dry dung,
rags, paper, or wool, some of these materials often
being festooned about the exterior also. The
Brahminy Kite (Haliastur indus), however, builds a

160 BIRDS’ NESTS

somewhat small flat nest of sticks, which is lined with
mud. The Hawks (Accipitrinz) are equally elaborate
nest-builders, but the materials are much the same,
as is also the style of nest—a more or less bulky yet
flat heap of sticks and twigs, many of the latter with
green buds adhering, and lined in some species with
roots, moss, and strips or flakes of bark, but the habit
of inserting green leaves does not appear to prevail.
The Harriers also included in the same sub-family
appear almost invariably to breed upon the ground
amongst herbage. These nests are often very similar
to those of the Rails breeding in similar localities, thus
showing how the habit of adaptability has developed
on precisely the same lines in the two groups of very
remotely allied birds. The nests of the various
species of Harriers vary somewhat in bulk, the largest
nests generally belonging to the species that breed in
the most aquatic haunts. Thus the nest of the Marsh
Harrier (Circus eruginosus) is bulky and made of reeds,
sticks, and twigs, and lined with dry herbage, the
bird occasionally adding to the structure as incuba-
tion proceeds, doubtless to protect it from any sudden
incursion of water. The nest of the Hen Harrier (C.
cyaneus), on the other hand, is much less elaborate in
many cases when made on dry heaths and mountain
sides, consisting of a hollow surrounded by a few
twigs and lined with dry herbage; yet when breeding

1 Incidentally, we may mention that this species sometimes
annexes the nest of a Coot.

OPEN NESTS 161

in wetter spots the nest is said sometimes to be a foot
or more in height. Montagus Harrier (C. cineraceus),
a bird living on heaths and moors, makes a scanty
nest like the first named type of that of the Hen
Harrier. Lastly, the somewhat aberrant Ospreys
(Pandioninz) build enormous eyries, placing them in
trees (as is especially the case in North America), or
on cliffs or ruined buildings. Many of the nests are
the accumulation of years, and consist of huge stacks
or piles of sticks as much as four feet high and as
many broad, intermixed with turf and lined with fine
twigs and grass, much of the latter in a green state.
The cavity containing the eggs is shallow and about
twelve inches in diameter. This latter bird builds in
societies in North America, but unfortunately it is far
too rare in our islands now for such an indulgence in
social instincts. As said before, perhaps the most
remarkable feature in the nesting arrangements of
Raptorial birds is the frequency of the green lining.
This lining, judging from the fresh state in which it is
usually found, seems to be renewed as required. Its
use appears to be totally unknown to naturalists.
The same habit has also been alluded to when we
were dealing with the nests of the Cormorants.

As we have already seen, most of the birds com-
posing the order Coraciiformes are either nestless,
build crude nests, or conceal them in a variety of
ways. There are, however, certain important excep-
tions to this rule in one of the families (the Humming-

L

162 BIRDS’ NESTS

birds), an open type of elaborate nest being built;
in another (the Swifts) such a form of nest occasion-
ally occurs. The Humming-birds (Trochilide) are
specially famous for their wonderful architectural
skill, their nests, although always open or cup-
shaped, presenting an amount of beauty, ingenuity,
and diversity attained in few other groups with the
same degree of uniformity. Unfortunately the limits
of my space prevent me dealing with these wonderful
nests to the extent I should wish, but I think
sufficient may be said to indicate the measure of
their beauty. The Humming-birds are a New World
group, and occur in greatest abundance in the equa-
torial regions, where they constitute, as Ridgway
tersely remarks, the most charming element in the
wonderfully varied bird-life of that vast area. As
the Humming-birds themselves number amongst
them some of the smallest avine forms, so also do
the nests many of them fabricate rank as the tiniest
examples of bird architecture. Some of these minute
homes are exquisitely neat, so deftly and perfectly
finished that we might suppose none but fairy fingers
had woven them, or that human intelligence had been
the prime mover in their design and workmanship,
and not the little mind that is encased in such a
small feathered casket. The principal materials
used by Humming-birds in nest-building are vege-
table downs of various kinds, spiders’ webs, fine
fibres, lichens, wool, hair, and moss, and more rarely

OPEN NESTS 163

feathers. Although the general shape and size of
these nests present considerable variation, they may
all be said to be fashioned on one plan. What-
ever their form and bulk may be they all culminate
in a cup-shaped receptacle, in which the two tiny
white eggs are deposited. The sites chosen for them
vary considerably in the different species, but there
are none in which the nest can fairly be classed as
pensile. The favourite or most general situation is
for the nest to be attached to the upper surface of
a horizontal or obliquely growing twig. Other nests
are fastened to the extremities of long flat leaves;
others suspended like hammocks from twigs; others
yet again are cemented or glued to cliffs and thick
branches by spiders’ webs; whilst some are fixed in
clusters of drooping leaves. A few of these beautiful
nests may now be described in greater detail.

One of the simplest forms of Humming-birds’ nests
is that made by the Prilled Coquette (Lophornis mag-
nificus), a simple little cup formed of down and fibres,
the materials of the under surface and one side being
worked round the slanting branch or twig that sup-

ports it, whilst a garniture of lichens on the outer
walls serves to assimilate the whole structure with
its surroundings. Another equally simple nest is
made by the Ruby-throat (Trochilus colubris). This
is a tiny cup about the size of one-half of an ordinary
walnut-shell, also fabricated of vegetable down, won-
derfully neatly lined with the same, and studded

164 BIRDS’ NESTS

externally with a mosaic of lichen, which causes the
nest to appear nothing but a knob or excrescence
upon the similarly lichen-garnished limb or trunk of
a tree. A third and similarly constructed nest
belongs to Costa’s Humming-bird (Calypte costa).
This is also attached or saddled to the upper sur-
face of a branch, and is composed externally of
lichens and flakes of bark bound together by spiders’
webs and lined with feathers. A fourth of the same
general type is made by the Calliope Humming-bird
(Stellula calliope), and usually fastened to the upper
side of some dead twig. As an instance of the in-
telligence and adaptability of Humming-birds we may
mention that a nest of this species, discovered by
Dr Merrill in Oregon, was built upon a dead, flattened
cone of Pinus contorta. It was fashioned externally
of thin strips of grey bark, cemented together with
spiders’ webs; lined with the same kind of bark, with
a few added tufts of cottony blossom, and so closely
matched in colour the cone that supported it, that it
was discovered with difficulty. A somewhat different
type of nest is slung in the fork of some twig. A
capital example of this type is presented by the nest
of the Circe Humming-bird (Iache latirostris); another
built in precisely similar situations is that of Xantus’s
Humming -bird (Basilinna xantusi). This latter. is
securely interwoven between two forks or prongs of
a twig resting between them. It is composed chiefly
of,raw cotton, thickly coated outside with spiders’

NEST OF CALLIOPE HUMMING BIRD (STELLULA CALLIOPE).
(After Plate in Report National Museum, 1850.)

OPEN NESTS 165

webs or leaf stems and seed capsules, and in some
cases is lined with a few soft white feathers. Other
types of nests are suspended from the tip of some
hanging twig of a vine or creeping plant. One of
these is formed by De Laland’s Plover-crest (Cephal-
lepis delalandi), which is more or less cone-shaped,
and the materials interwoven with a cluster of leaves.
Another is the work of the Brazilian Wood Nymph
(Thalurania glaucopis). Vegetable fibres and lichens,
cemented with spiders’ webs, form the outside, the
inside being lined with down and similar soft
material. The nest of the Red-throated Sapphire
Hylocharis sapphirina) is suspended in a very similar
manner from a slender drooping twig. Then we have
that exceedingly beautiful type of nest suspended
from the extremities of some palm or other ribbon-
like leaf. This type largely prevails amongst the
Hermit Humming-birds (Phaéthornis), the nests being
funnel-shaped, tapering off to a point and conforming
to the shape of the lance-like extremities of the leaf
to which they are attached. In some cases the nest
itself forms an artificial terminal point to the leaf,
notably so in that of the Pygmy Hermit (P. pygmaeus).
The usual materials are the delicate fibres of certain
plants, the cottony down of certain seed vessels,
bound together and to the leaf by masses of spiders’
webs. Other nests in this group are formed of slender
tendrils and roots, but the attachment is again secured
by the aid of silk-like and tenacious spiders’ webs.

166 BIRDS’ NESTS

Another leaf-suspended nest is that of the Saw-billed
Humming-bird (Grypus nevius). In this case the
materials are chiefly fibres woven in a net-like
manner, the inner foundation, however, being more
compact, and made of tiny leaves and moss fibres.
Another and exceptionally interesting type of nest is
well represented by that of the Fiery Topaz (Topaza
pyra). It is funnel or horn shaped, and saddled on
the upper side of a bunch of twigs, most of which are
interwoven with the lower part of the nest. The
materials are almost like leather in appearance, and
bear a very close resemblance in colour to the twigs
that support them. These are a certain kind of
fungus (Boletus). Lastly, we may allude to the
nests made by some of the Hill Stars (Oreotrochilus).
These are hammock-shaped structures made of
lichens or moss, vegetable downs, and feathers, and
attached to the face of some rock, on one side only,
by spiders’ webs. In some cases the upper part of
the nest is protected by an overhanging ledge of
rock. The Sappho Comet (Cometes sparganurus)
weaves a nest of fibres and moss, lined with hair,
and sometimes attaches it to the sides of a wall, or
to some pendant twig, where it is sheltered by a
ledge of rock above it. Some other of the Hill Stars
make exceptionally big nests, as large as a man’s
head, with a tiny cup at the top for the eggs.
Another species, the Mellisuga minima, one of the
smallest known, not much bigger than a bumble-bee,

OPEN NESTS 167

constructs a tiny cup-like nest of wool and fine hair,
disguising the outside with little bits of green moss
and lichens, attached with cobwebs, placing it between
the fronds of some small fern on the banks of a stream.
This bird breeds at San Domingo. Humming-birds
have frequently been watched during the actual pro-
cess of building their delicate little nests. Gosse
records how he watched a female Long-tailed Hum-
ming-bird (Trochilus polytmus) in the act of building
its nest, formed of moss, cotton down, lichens and
spiders’ webs, and suspended from a slender twig.
He watched her fly to the face of a rock clothed with
fine soft moss, and whilst hovering before it pluck
piece after piece until a large bunch had accumulated
in her bill. With this she flew to the nest, seated
herself on it and began to work in the new material,
pressing and arranging and interweaving them with
her bill, while she fashioned the cup of the nest by
pressure of her breast, moving round as she sat. Mr
Otto Emerson similarly remarked the nest-building of
Allen’s Humming-bird (Selasphorus allent) whilst con-
structing its cradle on a climbing rose tree beneath
a porch. He tells us how the female commenced
the nest on the end of the stalk by bringing a
quantity of willow cotton and spiders’ webs; how she
placed herself on the chosen spot, “ then with her bill,
running it here and there around the edge of the
bottom, picking out a bit here and there, to place
some other in its place, then working her wings in

168 BIRDS’ NESTS

a fluttering manner to shape the nest around her
body.” After the first egg was laid, she continued
to add to the nest by putting a bit of web or cotton
round it, being apparently hindered in her operations
by a high wind, which caused her to continue sitting
to prevent the eggs from being thrown out. Humming-
birds appear to be much attached to their breeding
places, in some cases being known to return to them
yearly and make new nests on the remains of the old
ones.

The open nests of the Swifts must now claim a pass-
ing notice. Although but a small group (numbering
less than eighty species), the Swifts present consider-
able diversity in their nesting arrangements. Most of
these birds build covered or concealed nests in build-
ings, caves, and so forth; others construct a domed
or roof type of nest (conf. p. 211); whilst some form
open cup-shaped structures, and these must be de-
scribed here. Of these the species associated in the
genus Dendrochelidon nest on stumps. Others form-
ing the genus Macropteryx, popularly termed “ Tree
Swifts,” make a very curious nest, remarkable speci-
ally for its small size, and attached to the side of a
thin bough of a tree. Hume describes one of these
nests as follows: “The stem to which the nest was
attached is about 0-8 inch in diameter; against the
side of this the nest is glued, so that the upper margin
of the nest is on a level with the upper surface of
the branch. The nest itself is half of a rather deep

OPEN NESTS 169

saucer 1-75 inches in diameter and about 0°6 in
depth internally. The nest is entirely composed of
thin flakes of bark, cemented together by the birds’
saliva, and is about an eighth of an inch in thickness.
The female, in incubating the solitary egg, is said to
sit transversely across the thin branch. The nest of
the Colies (Coliidz) require passing notice.

We have already dealt with the nests of the Parrots,
the Plantain-eaters and Cuckoos. Some, however,
belonging to the latter birds, as well as a few of the
Parrots, are sufficiently elaborate to be included in
the following chapter devoted to the consideration of
domed and roofed nests (conf. p. 212). We now reach
that vast assemblage of birds scientifically termed
Passeriformes. This, by far the largest order of
existing birds, numbering upwards of five thousand
five hundred species, contains not only the most
highly specialised, but the most widely distributed
avine forms. They are found in more or less abund-
ance over all the earth, and are consequently exposed
to an infinite variety of conditions, which fact is re-
flected in their architecture. As we stated when
briefly reviewing the reproduction methods of this
group in our recently-issued introductory volume to
ornithology,! so may we here repeat. The variety in
the nests of the Passeres can only be described as
amazing, and must be taken as an indication of the
high degree of specialisation to which the order has

The Story of the Birds, p. 250.

170 BIRDS’ NESTS

attained, of their wonderful intelligence and power
of adapting themselves to a multitude of condi-
tions and circumstances. The nests in each family
are by no means confined to certain types, and
the variation in their structure is by no means
correlated with affinity. Indeed, it is by no
means unusual to find several very distinct types of
nest in a single family or even in the same genus,
whilst in other cases a certain type of nest will
run through more or less distantly related groups.
Amongst all these bewildering examples of Passerine
architecture we have here to confine ourselves to the
open or cup-shaped types, and even the limits of our
space will only admit of a brief consideration of the
many more pronounced forms. Some few of the
nests of the Passeres have already been dealt with
in preceding pages, where the peculiar type of nest
rendered this necessary, as, for instance, when the
nest was placed in burrows, or concealed in some
special manner; whilst on the other hand, a very con-
siderable number come within the limits of the two
following chapters.

In this review of the open cup-shaped nests of the
Passeres, it will still be most convenient to follow the
same taxonomic method as we adopted for those of
the other orders in the present chapter, dealing in
sequence with the typical examples in each family.
Commencing, therefore, with the most highly special-
ised groups, we have first to consider the open nests

OPEN NESTS 171

of the Crows and allied birds (Corvide). As we have
already had occasion to point out, some of the nests
of these birds do not come within the present division
or “open” type, being concealed in holes or caves.
Then, again, that of the Magpies being elaborately
“ roofed,” must be reserved for the following chapter.
As a very typical open nest in this family, we may
instance that of the Raven (Corvus corax). This bird
breeds indiscriminately on trees as well as on rocks,
although in our islands incessant persecution has
exterminated almost every tree-building Raven, and
the very existence of the species as British depends
upon its cliff-frequenting habits during the season of
reproduction. The nest is placed therefore either in
the branches of some large tree, or upon a ledge or
in a fissure of the least accessible portion of some
cliff, marine or otherwise. Its size depends a good
deal upon the length of its tenancy, for the Raven, if
left unmolested, returns to the same nest each season,
adding to and repairing it just before use. The nest
is made externally of sticks, branches of heather and
pieces of turf, the soft lining to the somewhat shallow
egg cavity being composed of wool, roots, moss, fur
and hair. Some of the allied birds are in the habit
of cementing many of the sticks together with mud
or clay, as, for instance, the Rook (C. fuigelegus), this
material sometimes forming an inner lining, upon
which the softer substances are afterwards arranged.
The Magpies are another instance (conf. p. 215). If

172 BIRDS’ NESTS

we include the Australian Magpie Lark (Grallina
australis) in the present family, although its affinities
are by no means clear, some authorities establishing
a separate family (Prionopidz) for its reception, we
have another bird-worker in mud of a still more
interesting character. The nest of this curious bird
resembles a massive cup-shaped earthenware vessel,
being built of mud or clay mixed with grass, bits of
stick and stems of plants, and even feathers, these
substances being used to strengthen and bind the
plastic mud together, much as human builders employ
hair to consolidate their plaster. No special effort is
made to conceal this nest, which is generally placed
very securely on the upper side of some horizontal
branch, often one overhanging water. We shall again
have to refer to bird architects in mud, not only in
the present but in the succeeding chapters. These
wotkers in mud belong to various and distantly
related families, and show us, as we have so often
remarked before, how the nest-building habit has
been developed on almost precisely similar lines, not
only by remotely allied species, but in widely sepa-
rated parts of the world. Some of the Pies (Den-
drocitta) make shallow cup-shaped nests of a rather
flimsy description, in many cases at no very great
height from the ground in bushes. They are made
of fine twigs, stems of creepers and weeds, generally
with no lining, but occasionally with a scanty one of
hair, the fibrous roots of ferns and bamboos, and the

OPEN NESTS 173

soft stems of green weeds. The nests of the Jays
introduce us to another and somewhat different type
of corvine architecture. The true Crows breed prin-
cipally on the higher forest trees and on rocks, but
the Jays form their nests in brushwood, hedgerows,
and lower vegetation generally, never resorting to
cliffs. They are pre-eminently woodland birds. The
nest of the Common Jay (Garrulus glandarius), a
species common in many parts of the British
Islands, may be taken as fairly typical. A site for
this is usually selected in some tall bush or sapling,
especially in a holly, yew, or other evergreen, or
amongst a clustering mass of woodbine, and other
trailing plants. The outer structure is composed of
small sticks, the slenderer twigs being used as the nest
approaches completion, these being sometimes bound
together here and there with mud, whilst the final
lining is formed of roots. Although bulky, the nest
of the Jay is neatly made, and the cup is deep and
well finished. Lastly, we may briefly notice the nests
of the Nutcrackers (Nucifraga). These birds are also
forest dwellers. The Common Nutcracker (N. caryo-
catactes) breeds in pine and fir forests, commencing
usually before the snow has melted off the ground.
It places its nest at a height of from fifteen to thirty
feet from the ground, in a fir, spruce, or pine tree, on
one of the nearly horizontal branches close to the
trunk. It is an open, somewhat flat, structure, com-
posed externally of twigs from the surrounding trees,

174 BIRDS’ NESTS

sometimes cemented with mud or clay, and lined with
moss, roots, strips of bark, and grass, the latter either
in a dry or half-green state. Although the extreme
diameter of the nest may be a foot or more, and its
total height about half as much, the cup containing
the egg is no more than four inches in diameter and
two inches in depth. Both Jays and Nutcrackers are
solitary during the nesting season, but some of the
Crows are very gregarious at that time.

Following the Crows, and somewhat closely allied
to them, we have those wonderful avine forms the
Birds of Paradise (Paradiseide). Unfortunately the
nests of very few species are known to science, and
possibly when more are discovered there will be a
much greater amount of variation in the type of nest
than is now suspected. Speaking generally, the nests
of the Birds of Paradise are placed in bushes and
trees. They are of the open cup-shaped type, formed
of sticks and twigs, and lined with dead leaves, moss,
fibres and grass. Detailed descriptions of one or two
of the more aberrant forms may, however, be given.
In 1898 Mr D. Le Souéf described the nest of Gould’s
Manucode (Manucodia gouldi) from a specimen taken
near Cape York in Queensland. He informs us that
it is a shallow open structure, made of curly vine
tendrils, the inside being lined with similar but finer
material; whilst on the branch on which the nest
was built, and in conjunction with it, an orchid was
growing, a portion of which plant had been worked

OPEN NESTS 175

into the outside of the nest. The external diameter
of this nest was six inches, internal four inches;
external depth three and a half inches, internal one
and three-quarters inches. It was built on a hori-
zontal fork of a tall scrub tree, amongst forest
country, and about twenty yards from dense bush,
at a height of nearly fifty feet from the ground.
The nests of the equally aberrant Rifle-birds (Cras-
pedophora), inhabiting much the same regions, are
also of another type. That of Prince Albert’s Rifle-
bird (C. alberti), also from the vicinity of Cape York,
has been described by the same naturalist. One of
the most remarkable features about this nest is the
exceptionally loose way in which the materials are
put together. One of the nests was made in a small
palm about seven feet from the ground; others were
in pandanus trees, or in small trees that had had
their tops broken off and a few shoots growing out;
others were placed against the stems of small trees
where two or three vine branches met; whilst in a
solitary instance a nest was found on the top of a
stump only eighteen inches from the ground. The
nest is little more than a loose heap of material
made of green twigs with the leaves still attached,
large dead leaves, and the tendrils of vines. The
external depth of the nest is about five inches,
internal two and three-quarter inches, outside
diameter nine inches, internal about half that
amount. The singular, we might say almost unique,

176 BIRDS’ NESTS

Bower-birds (Ptilonorhynchine) are associated by
most systematists with the Birds of Paradise. As is
generally known, these birds construct more or less
elaborate and decorated “bowers” in which to
conduct their courtship; but these structures are
in no sense “nests,” and only indirectly associated
with the function of reproduction. The Bower-birds
appear to have exhausted most of their architectural
skill in the construction of their bowers, for their
nests are comparatively crudely fashioned. The love
arbours of these birds, so far as is known, are always
made upon the ground, but in the matter of nesting
they appear to be strictly arboreal species. Three
nests of the Great Bower-bird (Chlamydodera nuchalis),
described by the same authority above quoted, from
North-Western Australia, were built on an “iron-
wood” tree in the open forest, about fifteen feet from
the ground. They were placed near the extremity of
a branch, one of them being built in a cluster of
mistletoe. They are of the usual open type, slight,
and made entirely of twigs, the entire depth of the
structures being five inches, the cup two inches, the out-
side diameter eight inches, and the inside four inches.

Our next family of open nest builders is composed
of the Drongos (Dicruridz). These birds generally
place their nests in forking branches, either upright
or horizontal, near the summit or outermost parts
of trees, attaching them strongly to the supporting
twigs either by interlacing the materials with them,

GOLDEN ORIOLE AND NEST.

OPEN NESTS 177

or by the aid of tenacious cobwebs roped round nest
and branch. They are rather small cup-shaped
structures, four or five inches in external diameter,
and composed of slender twigs and coarse grass
cemented with spiders’ webs and garnished outside
with scraps of lichen, moss, bark, and cocoons.
Passing on to the Orioles (Oriolidz) we are intro-
duced to another and somewhat different type of
open nest. This is of the usual open form, but is
slung hammock or cradle like from some forking
branch. The Orioles are skilful weavers and
thoroughly felt the materials together, enclosing
the supporting twigs near the rim of the nest on
either side. The most familiar species to us is the
Golden Oriole (Oriolus galbula), which builds a nest
that cannot be confused with the abode of any other
European bird. This nest is slung from a fork of
some horizontal branch (an oak, perhaps, by prefer-
ence), and is made externally of the leaves of sedge
and narrow strips of bark, these being twisted
round the twigs in many places, and often inter-
mixed with dry leaves and even bits of paper. The
lining chiefly consists of the stalks and flowers of
grasses. Of course these materials vary a good
_deal according to the species that uses them, but
the general plan of the nest is very similar through-
out the group. We may pass over the birds
popularly known as Hang-nests (Icteridz), for their
cradles must be reserved for a future chapter,
M

178 BIRDS’ NESTS

although we ought to mention at least one or two
instances of a variation from the usual type of
pendulous nest. One of these is made by an
aberrant member of the family popularly known in
Lower Amazonia as the “Aritana” (Gymnomystax
melanicterus). It is deeply cup-shaped, more re-
sembling that of a Thrush, and is composed of grass
leaves (both split and entire), slender roots, and
fragments of small climbing plants. For these
particulars we are indebted to the researches of
Dr Goeldi, first recorded in the Ibis (1897, p. 367).
Other members of this family build open nests,
such, for instance, as’ some of the Grackles.

The nests of the Weaver-birds (Ploceidz) are
almost invariably domed or pendulous, so that we
are not concerned with them at present, and our
next assemblage of open nest-builders will consist
of the Tanagers (Tanagridz). The architecture of
these birds is not particularly striking, the nests
being as a rule somewhat flat and shallow, and often
placed or “saddled” on horizontal boughs, although
a domed type occasionally occurs (conf. p. 242). The
Tanagers are exclusively confined to America, by
far the greater number of species inhabiting the
Neotropical region. Their usual nest materials are
twigs, roots, fibres, leaves, and moss, but the lining
is not particularly soft or plentiful. Passing over
the nests of the Sugar-birds (Czrebidz), which are
domed, we arrive at a very extensive family of

OPEN NESTS 179

open nest-builders, the Finches and allied species
(Pringillide). The prevailing type of nest in this
family is an open one, but there is a wonderful
amount of variety not only in the materials but in
the manner in which they are worked. Some of
the most beautiful examples of avine architecture
are included in the present family of birds; whilst
on the other hand not a few must be ranked
amongst the most slovenly, untidy, or even crude.
It would be absolutely impossible to treat fully and
exhaustively with the architecture of these birds in
the space at our disposal here; all that we can do
is to give a general idea of it so far as it is at
present known (details being exceptionally meagre
in some cases), and illustrate our generalisations by
some of the most prominent and interesting types.
The nests}of the Finches are, as just stated, open
and cup-shaped, but they vary a good deal in depth
and amount of materials. The latter principally
consist of twigs, straws, dry grass, moss, wool,
vegetable downs, hair and feathers; whilst lichens,
cobwebs, cocoons, and flakes of bark are often
employed as an external garniture for harmonising
the structure with its surroundings and thus ensuring
concealment. We may dismiss such nests as those
of the Sparrows and some of the Buntings, as they
are either domed or placed in concealed or covered
sites. The usual situations for the nests of the
Finches are amongst comparatively low vegetation,

180 BIRDS’ NESTS

bushes, small trees, hedges and shrubs; the Buntings
are mostly ground builders. Perhaps the most
elaborate builders are found amongst the typical
Finches, of which our own Chaffinch is a familiar ex-
ample—the Linnets, Redpoles, and Goldfinches; next
in order of finish we may include the Crossbills, and
Bullfinches, and Grosbeaks; whilst the least elaborate
number amongst them such forms as the Hawfinches
and Rose-finches, and more especially the Buntings.
The shallowest nests are made by such species as
the Hawfinches and Bullfinches, the deepest ones by
the Chaffinches, Goldfinches and Redpoles. One of
the most beautiful nests in the entire family is made
by the Common Chaffinch (Fringilla ca@lebs). This
nest is most frequently made in a fork or crotch of
some lichen-covered branch, although other situations
are often selected. In shape it is a rounded cup,
and is variously made of moss, dry grass, fine roots,
cobwebs, lichens and wool outside, lined with feathers,
hair, vegetable down and wool. The Chaffinch always
appears to aim at assimilating her nest with the
colour and appearance of surrounding objects, hence
the materials employed in one situation would be
totally out of place in another. The external part
of the structure is therefore subject to the greatest
variation. Some nests are made externally almost
entirely of green moss; others have this green moss
outer wall thickly studded with variously tinted
lichen, bits of decayed wood, cocoons, or even

NEST OF THE CHAFFINCH (FRINGILLA CCELEBS).

OPEN NESTS 181

scraps of paper, all fastened to the moss with
spiders’ webs. This garniture is often more abun-
dant on one side of the nest than the other, and
the whole structure is moulded and felted to the
exact shape of the crotch or fork that supports it.
The inside cup is remarkably well finished, smooth,
and neat, with scarcely a hair protruding above the
rest. There are many other birds that seek to
conceal their nests by practising the art of mimicry,
but none excels the Chaffinch, We might also
mention that the female alone is the builder, and
that a well-finished nest will often take nearly a
fortnight to complete—a wonderful example, truly,
of intelligent perseverance. An almost equally ex-
“quisite nest is made by the Goldfinch (Fringilla
carduelis). This is frequently placed in the fork of
a tree, or at the extremity of some drooping branch.
It is almost as neat as that of the preceding species,
the materials being equally well felted and made of
very similar materials, but the garniture of lichens
is not so prominent and it is considerably smaller.
The Linnets are equally elaborate builders, delighting
to place their nest in a gorse bush; but in their
case stall twigs and stalks are often worked into
the margin and foundation, as they also are into
the very similar abode of the Twite (Linota flavirostris).
The Crossbills (Loxia) also make use of a still greater
number of twigs loosely twined together, and forming
with grass and roots the outside of the nest, which

182 BIRDS’ NESTS

is warmly lined with wool, furs, hairs, and feathers.
These birds generally place their nests in firs or
some other evergreen tree. Other Finches that
employ a good many twigs in the outer portion of
their nests are the Bullfinches, Hawfinches, and
Grosbeaks. The nest of the Common Bullfinch has
already been described (conf. p. 62). The Hawfinches
(Coccothraustes) construct somewhat flat nests, bulky,
and fashioned outside of twigs, dead stalks, and
roots, and lined with finer roots, grass, and hair.
The Grosbeaks (Pinicola) place their similarly flat
nests on some horizontal branch usually near the
trunk, of a conifer by preference, and made on a
very similar plan—a mat of twigs for foundation,
finished off with roots and stems and lined with
finer roots, dry grass, and shreds of hair-like
lichens. The Rose-finches (Carpodacus) are less
elaborate builders, but their nests are somewhat
deeper. Twigs are generally absent, the outer nest
being composed of coarse grass stalks, the lining of
finer grasses and horsehair. The cup, however, is
very neatly finished and beautifully rounded. The
usual site is a fork in some bush or low tree. The
simplest type of Finch nest is made by some of the
Buntings, although these nests are not unfrequently
bulky, and in certain species more elaborate. They
are variously placed upon the ground, amongst
brushwood, in bushes or low trees, and are always
cup-shaped, although, as we have already stated,

OPEN NESTS 183

sometimes built in covered sites. The usual materials
are roots, dry grass, stalks, and moss for the outer
part of the structure, finer roots, more slender grasses
and hair for the lining.

Our next family consists of the Larks (Alaudidz).
There is nothing specially remarkable to record con-
cerning the nests of the majority of species in this
group. The prevailing type of nest is a slight, open,
cup-shaped one, but exceptionally we have a domed
style of architecture (as in the genus Mirafra), noticed
in the following chapter (conf. p. 220). The Larks
generally nest upon the ground, placing their cradles
amongst herbage, and constructing them of dry grass,
roots, stalks and bits of moss, lined with finer grass
and roots, and in some cases hair or vegetable down.
Very similar remarks apply to the architecture of the
Wagtails and Pipits (Motacillidz), some of the former
birds making slightly more elaborate nests; whilst in
both sections the nest is exceptionally hidden or con-
cealed under stones in rock crevices domed as in some
nests of the Indian Pipit (Anthus rufulus), as we have
already described. The Pied Wagtails are uniformly
the most elaborate builders, constructing their cup
type of nest of dry grass, fine twigs, bent roots and
moss, lined with wool, hair, and feathers. The Yellow
Wagtails make as a rule slighter nests, and the lining
differs a good deal, not only in quantity, but in
description of material, even in the same species.
The exclusively American family of Wood Warblers

184 BIRDS’ NESTS

(Mnioteltidz) generally make open cup-shaped nests,
which they place in trees and bushes, more excep-
tionally on the ground, and in some cases arched
over, as in the Golden-crowned Thrush (Siurus
auricapillus), or even completely domed, as in
Dendreeca capitalis, the “Yellow Bird” of Barbados.
The materials employed are twigs, roots, dry grass,
leaves, lichens, and moss, the linings (more or less
elaborate) consisting of hair and feathers. Passing
over the more or less concealed nests of the Creepers
(Certhiidz) we come to those of the Honey-eaters
(Meliphagidz), where the open cup-shaped type again
prevails, although in one or two instances a globular
type is said to be made. These birds are confined to
the Australian region. Their nests somewhat resemble
those of the Orioles in the way they are suspended by
the upper rim to forks of branches. Coarse grass,
fibres, strips of bark, moss, and spiders’ webs are the
principal external materials, cotton and other vege-
table downs and feathers compose the lining. The
nests of some of these Honey-eaters have been very
minutely described by Mr D. Le Souéf. That of the
Banded Honey-eater (Myzomela pectoralis) was, as
usual, suspended between a fork near the extremity
of a branch of an ironwood tree, and made externally
of a few vine tendrils and strips of bark, bound together
by spider’s webs, which also serve to attach the nest
to the supporting branches. The inside is sparingly
lined with fine grass. Owing to the thin lining in the

OPEN NESTS 185

nest of this species the eggs can easily be seen through
the bottom from below. The nest of the Graceful
Honey-eater (Ptilotis gracilis) is generally placed
amongst the leaves at the end of a branch of some
densely foliaged tree. The tiny cup-shaped nest has
the foundation chiefly composed of flat pieces of
paper-bark and moss, the upper portion being
finished off with green moss and shreds of bark, the
whole being covered and bound together with spiders’
webs, whilst the inside of the cup is warmly and
thickly lined with down from the native cotton
plant. The nest of another species in the same
genus, the Yellow-spotted Honey-eater (P. notata) is
very similar, but is a little more loosely put together,
and the exterior is principally composed of shreds of
acoarse grass, intermixed with bits of bark, and lightly
covered with web; the lining, however, is the same,
the glossy white down from cotton pods. The
generally domed or porched nests of the Sun-birds
(Nectariniidz),1 and those of the Flower-peckers
(Diczidz), must be reserved for the following
chapters, but mention may here be made of the
dainty cup-shaped nests of the White-eyes (Zoster-
opide), which are slung hammock-wise to forking
twigs at the extremities of branches or placed in
upright crotches, and made of similar materials to

1 The nest of the Indian Aithopyga longirostris, for instance, is
cup-shaped and attached to the under side of some leaf by a series
of stitches or punctures, the material of the rim being used for threads,

186 BIRDS’ NESTS

those employed by the Honey-eaters. The nest of
Diceum minimum (a widely distributed bird in Ceylon)
is described by Mr F. Lewis as being cup-shaped and
built in the angle of two forking twigs. The nests of
the typical Titmice (Paridz) have mostly been dealt
with already (conf. p. 121), but those of some of the
more specialised forms (Acredula, Aigithalus) must
be reserved for later chapters (conf. pp. 225, 255),
The nests of the delicate little Goldcrests (Regulinz)
must, however, be described here. These nests also
belong to the Oriole and White-eye class, being slung
like hammocks or purses between forking twigs at
the extremities of branches, usually of some non-
deciduous tree. That of our own Goldcrest (Regulus
cristatus) is chiefly composed of moss and lichens;
these and the surrounding foliage being deftly inter-
woven with the aid of spiders’ webs and hairs, and
lined with hair and feathers. The nest of another
and perhaps still more aberrant member of the
Paridze must also be noticed. This is the home of the
single known species of Bearded Titmouse (Panurus
biarmicus). The Bearded Tit is an inhabitant of reed
beds, and builds its nest amongst the vegetation of its
marshy home, selecting as a site some tuft of sedge or
aquatic herbage where the overhanging stems offer it
concealment. This nest is made of dry marsh grass,
bits of reed, dead leaves and other scraps of vegeta-
tion, lined with finer grass and the flowers of reeds and
rushes. Although loosely woven, it is neatly finished,

OPEN NESTS 187

Our next group of open nest-builders contains the
Shrikes (Laniide). The nests of these birds are
placed in trees and bushes, and are of the normal
cup-shaped type, loosely but skilfully constructed of
twigs, roots, grass stems, and the flower stalks of
various plants, often with the flowers attached, and
lined with soft materials, such as moss, wool, hair,
and feathers. From the Shrikes we pass on to the
Waxwings (Ampelidz), in which the same open type
of nest prevails. The most familiar species to British
ornithologists is the Bohemian Waxwing (Ampelis
garrulus), although it does not breed within our
limits, only visiting them as an abnormal migrant at
irregular intervals. This species breeds in open,
scattered colonies in the northern fir and spruce
forests, being very erratic in its choice of a nesting
place, seldom resorting to the same locality for two
seasons in succession. The bulky and rather deep
nest, built from eight to twelve feet from the ground
on some convenient branch, is composed externally
of twigs and reindeer moss, and lined with dry grass,
hair-like tree lichens, strips of inner birch bark, and
feathers. The nest cavity is about two inches in
depth and four inches in diameter. Our next family
of open cup-shaped nest-builders contains the Vireos
or Greenlets (Vireonidz), another strictly American
group. Here, again, we have the hammock-like type
of nest, very similar to that made by the Orioles and
White-eyes, being placed in the forking twigs at the

188 BIRDS’ NESTS

extremities of branches. These nests are remarkably
well-woven, the rim on either side enclosing the sup-
porting twigs, and are formed of a variety of fibrous
and soft material, the interior especially being very
neatly finished. Some of the species stucco the
sides of their exquisite little homes with lichens, as,
for instance, the Yellow-throated Greenlet (Vireo
fiavifrons).

We now arrive at the very extensive family
in which is contained the Thrushes and Warblers
(Turdidz). The nests of many of the species in-
cluded in this group have already been described, such
as those of the Rock Thrushes, the Redstarts, and
the Chats; some others, especially in the Warbler
section, must be reserved for the following chapter.
The remaining number of “ open” nests is, however,
not only very considerable, but includes numerous
well-defined types. The nests of the Thrushes
(Turdinz), with the above mentioned exceptions, are
certainly the most uniform in type—a well-made,
fairly bulky structure, which may be placed either on
the ground or in bushes, trees, and other vegetation,
at a moderate height above it. A description of one
or two of the most divergent nests must suffice for
the present purpose. As a nest thoroughly repre-
sentative of the Thrushes, we may take that of the
Blackbird (Merula vulgaris). This. nest, placed in a
variety of situations, but usually in the centre of a
bush or on a bank, passes through three distinct

OPEN NESTS 189

stages (as in fact do those of the majority of Thrushes
and Ouzels) before it is completed, as we pointed out
twenty years ago.) The first stage consists of a
structure formed of coarse grass, amongst which a
few twigs are sometimes woven round the rim or
sides, a little moss, and dead leaves. The second
stage sees this loose cup firmly cemented together
inside with a thick plaster of mud or clay. The third
or final stage brings the nest to completion by a thick
lining of finer grasses arranged very neatly and
smoothly. A divergence from this type is presented
in the nest of the Song Thrush (Turdus musicus),
which, however, may fairly be said to pass through
the triple stages. The first two are very similar to
those which the nests of the majority of Thrushes
undergo, but after the mud lining is inserted a second
lining is formed, this time composed of wet rotten
wood, which is very skilfully manipulated, so that
when dry it is almost as smooth as an earthenware
vessel. Then some of the species in the present
sub-family build more or less concealed nests on the
ground—a type of architecture which we have
already illustrated by the nests of the Robin, the
Nightingale, and so forth. There are, however,
certain other genera in which the birds more or
less habitually nest upon the open ground amongst
herbage. The Whinchat (Pratincola rubetra) is one
of the most familiar examples. This bird very often
14 History of British Birds, i. p. 241,

190 BIRDS’ NESTS

builds its nest in a slight hollow in the ground amongst
the long meadow grass, making it externally of dry
grass and moss, and lining it with fine roots and
hairs.

The “open” nests of the Warblers (Sylviinz)
present a far greater amount of variety, and range
from the slight net-like cradles of such species as the
Whitethroat and Blackcap to the compact and bulky
structures fabricated by such forms as the Marsh
Warblers, and so on. To a very great extent these
types of nest are peculiar to the various genera.
Confining ourselves for the present to the open cup-
shaped type of nest, we may briefly sketch this
divergence and illustrate it by a few examples taken
from the more familiar species. Beginning with the
least elaborate, we have the nests of the birds com-
prising the genus Sylvia. Of these the Blackcap (S.
atricapilla) makes a flimsy, loosely-woven nest com-
posed chiefly of dry grass stalks, with a scrap or two
of moss, a few leaf-stalks and roots, sparingly lined
with horsehair. It is so frail and net-like in com-
position that the eggs can often be seen through the
material. Some of the other species in this genus,
however, make more elaborate homes, as, for instance,
the Orphean Warbler (S. orphea), which adds a lining
of vegetable down to its cradle. Then we have the
nests of the birds associated in the genus Locustella.
Of these the Grasshopper Warbler (L. nevia) makes
a somewhat compact and deep nest of dry grass,

OPEN NESTS 191

moss, and dead leaves, lined with finer grass stalks,
and placed on or near the ground amongst brambles
or rank vegetation. Another species, Savi’s Warbler
(L. luscinioides), constructs a cup-shaped nest made
of flat ribbon-like leaves of sedges, the narrowest
ones being reserved for the lining, and placing it
among the aquatic vegetation of its haunts. The
Reed Warblers (Acrocephalus) introduce us to another
type of architecture, many of these species suspending
their open nests from the stems of reeds, often such
that are growing in water. The bird selects three
or four stems suitably situated for the purpose, and
round them weaves a deep well-made nest formed of
dry grass, roots, and the flat leaves of reeds, lined
with finer root-fibres, hair, and occasionally a few
feathers, a little moss or bits of wool and vegetable
down. One of these birds is a fairly common if local
visitor to England and Wales, the Reed Warbler (A.
arundinaceus).1 Then we may instance the Icterine
or Tree Warblers (Hypolais). These birds build very
beautiful little nests, placing them in forking branches
of low trees. That of the Icterine Warbler (H. icterina),
for instance, is almost as elaborately made as that
of the Chaffinch, but somewhat smaller and a trifle
deeper. Externally, it is made of dry grass and moss,
interwoven with strips of bark and felted together with

1 The Grass Warblers Prinia (an aberrant group) build cup-shaped

nests slung between the stems of reeds near water, made of grasses,
flowering aquatic weeds, and lined with finer grasses,

192 BIRDS’ NESTS

spiders’ webs, wool, and vegetable down, the walls
more or less garnished with lichens; internally it is
finished off with fine roots, grass stems, and horse-
hair. Lastly, we have the Rufous Warblers (Aédon).
These birds construct rather bulky nests made of
dead twigs, roots, straws, coarse grass, and bits of
lichen, and line them well with wool, vegetable down,
feathers, or hair. It is a somewhat remarkable fact
that the lining almost invariably includes a piece of
the dry skin of a serpent, which the Arabs assert acts
as a charm in protecting the eggs from snakes!

The nests of the Dippers (Cinclidz) are invariably
domed ; as are also the majority of those of the Wrens
(Troglodytidz), and these must therefore be reserved
for a future chapter. Some few of the latter birds,
however, construct open nests. Then we come to the
American family Mimide, of which the well-known
Cat-bird (Mimus carolinensis) is a representative
species, or the still more celebrated Mocking-bird
(M. polyglottus). The methods of nidification in this
family very closely resemble those of the typical
Thrushes, to which birds the Mimidz must be closely
related. The Cat-bird builds a large, clumsy nest at
no great height from the ground (three to ten feet,
perhaps, on an average) on the branch of a cedar, or
some other tree. It is made of dry grass, the stems
of plants and twigs, and lined with fine roots. One of
its most striking peculiarities is the way in which it is
often decorated outside with bits of rag and paper and

OPEN NESTS 193

macerated leaves. The Mocking-bird places its nest
in very similar situations in bushes or small trees, and
constructs it of almost precisely the same materials—
grass, twigs, dead leaves and a lining of roots. This
species also decorates its nest with wool and similar
things. The architecture of the next family of birds
(Timeliide) is of a most varied character, partly be-
cause it is one of the most heterogeneous groups in
the entire avine class—a receptacle, “ or refuge for the
destitute,” as Seebohm used to say, into which almost
every Passere of doubtful affinities has been cast by
bewildered systematists. This family still requires
revision, when more natural limits may be set to
its boundaries. Almost every type of nest may, in
the existing order of things be found within it; but
as the species are principally tropical, domed or
otherwise concealed structures are dominant. In
the present chapter, all that we need concern our-
selves with is the open type. One of the most re-
markable of these is adopted by many of the famous
Tailor-birds (Orthotomus), a group which is rightly or
wrongly associated with the Timelines by one of the
most recent cataloguers of the group. The taxonomic
position of the Tailor-birds, however, we have for-
tunately nothing to do with here; all that need
concern us are their wonderful nests. A descrip-
tion of that made by the well-known Indian Tailor-
bird (Orthotomus longicaudas), will amply suffice for
the present purpose. The extraordinary intelligence
N

194 BIRDS’ NESTS

of the bird appeals to us more strongly than anything
in the nest itself. In the first place, the Tailor-bird
selects some broad leaf, or frequently two leaves,
usually at the end of some slender branch, and with
its long, slender, awl-like bill it pierces a series of
holes irregularly along the margins. Then, with a
thread which it either weaves for itself out of cotton
or similar fibres, or obtains in other cases ready made,
it commences to sew or draw the leaves together,.
being careful, after passing it through the leaf, to
make a knot at the end of it. Through and through
the holes the feathered tailor draws its thread, until
the leaf or leaves are formed into a hollow, cone-
shaped receptacle or pocket, in which the actual nest
is placed. This latter is cup-shaped, and principally
composed of cotton, wool, or similarly soft materials.
Tailor-birds, I should mention, are not the only
species that ply needle and thread in their nest-
making for almost, if not quite, equal “tailors,” or
perhaps we might more properly say, ‘ sempstresses,”
are found in the Sylviine genus Cisticola (conf. p. 229)
and amongst some of the Sun-birds, as for instance,
species in the genus Aithopyga (conf. p. 185).

Among the other characteristic builders of the open
type of nest in the present family may be mentioned
the Laughing Thrushes of the Oriental region contained
in several genera, such as Garrulax and Trochalop-
terum. That of Trochalopterum virgatum, for in-
stance, is placed in very similar situations to those

OPEN NESTS 195

selected by our own Blackbird, such as near the
ground amongst weeds and brushwood, or some dis-
tance above it in the fork of a bush or low tree. It
is cup-shaped, deep and well made of a great variety of
materials, such as grasses, dead leaves, roots, moss,
the tendrils from certain creeping plants, fibres, and
sometimes bamboo leaves and fern fronds, roots and
fern stems forming the lining. In some nests bamboo
leaves are omitted, but tendrils appear to be a special
feature of all. The inside cup measures, on an aver-
age, about four inches in diameter by three inches in
depth. The nest of Garrulax gularis, another of these
Indian Laughing Thrushes, is made of almost exactly
the same materials, tendrils again being a speciality,
and in some cases forming the bulk of the materials,
even the lining being partly formed of the finest ones.
The favourite sites are within a few feet from the
ground, amongst thickets of bramble and fern, some
distance within the dense jungle or forest. Then we
may mention the nest of Stactocichla merulina. This
bird breeds in mountain forests of evergreen trees
and in bamboo jungles, placing its nest in some thick
shrub or clump of bamboo. The nest is somewhat
bulky, although the cup is rather shallow. Two
classes of materials are employed, according to the
site chosen. Thus, when in bushes the outside is
formed of roots, grass, bamboo and other leaves,
intermixed with moss and bracken, the interior being
lined with delicate roots of ferns and moss, the finest

196 BIRDS’ NESTS

stems and tendrils of creepers or twigs. When placed
among bamboo the leaves of that plant form the chief
external material, bound together by stems of plants
and roots. This is lined first with coarse roots of
ferns and fibrous roots of bamboo, well interlaced,
whilst the final lining consists of fern and moss roots
of the finest character. Some of the nests in the
present family, although cup-shaped, approach the
domed type, one side being much prolonged and
slightly overhanging the egg cavity, as for instance,
that of Corythocichla striata. In other Indian genera
of Stachyrhis and Stachyrhidopsis we have species
that build no fewer than three types of nest, ranging
from an open cup to a completely domed structure,
although we should say that the first type is placed
under shelter of some kind, such as a mass of plants
and roots, and more naturally comes into the division
treated in the previous chapter. I mention the in-
stance to impress still further upon the student the
wonderful adaptability displayed by birds in almost
every great natural group.

The Bulbuls (Pycnonotidz) comprise the next family,
of which the nests require notice here. These are
open structures, made of a great variety of materials
and placed in bushes, low trees, and more exceptionally
amongst creepers. The nest of the Striated Green
Bulbul (Alcurus striatus) is composed externally of
twigs and fern roots compactly interlaced, lined in the
first place with more twigs and roots and stems of

OPEN NESTS 197

weeds, these materials being wound loosely round and
round and not interlaced, and finally finished off with
a bed of very fine grass laid in a similar way. In some
nests fronds of fern moss are used. They are shallow,
the egg cavity measuring little more than an inch in
depth. The nest of the Finch-billed Bulbul (Spizixus
canifrons) is a specially remarkable one, for the bird
is said to use scarcely any other material in its con-
struction but the tendrils of various climbing plants.
According to Mr Stewart Baker, to whom I am
much indebted for many particulars concerning the
nests of these and other Indian species, as recorded
by him in the Ibis, almost any kind of tendril
sufficiently pliable is used for the outer part of
the nest, but for the inner part the bird prefers
the fine but strong tendrils of the small yellow
ground-convolvulus. As a rule no real lining is
inserted, but in some nests a scrap or two of bracken,
or even more rarely a few bents or grass stems. The
nest is usually built in stunted bushes and saplings,
wedged in between several upright twigs, less fre-
quently in a stout fork. Blyth’s Bulbul (Xanthixus
flavescens) makes a rather neat and compact but
shallow nest of twigs, stems of weeds, roots of ferns,
dark-coloured tendrils and less frequently dead leaves
and fern stems, lined with grasses, especially the flower-
ing ends from which the seeds have been stripped.
This nest is built in dense bushes, in a cluster of
twigs or thick forks, from three to five feet from the

198 BIRDS’ NESTS

ground. The Bulbuls in the genus lIole are remarkable
for the fact that they build their nests in horizontal
forks, after the manner of the Orioles. The Olive
Bulbul (ole virescens) slings its somewhat bulky
compact yet shallow nest from a fork of twigs, in-
closing the latter in the material, and at a distance
of nearly five feet from the ground. The principal
external material consists of long strips of inner bark,
with a few scraps of outer bark, and a large number of
very fine and elastic twigs. The outside of the nest is
also studded with small dead leaves, fastened to the
other materials with spiders’ webs, the latter not only
serving to bind all together, but to attach the nest to
its supporting twigs. The lining consists of black
fern-roots, long fibres of a reddish colour, and the
tendrils of some creeping plant. In some nests the
latter material predominates in the lining; in others
the black fern-roots occupy the greater part. It is
interesting to remark the change in materials with
the change of method of attaching the nest, the
Bulbuls adopting cobwebs for the purpose just as so
many other remotely allied birds have been found
to do.

Our next assemblage of open nest-builders consists
of the Cuckoo Shrikes (Campephagidz). These birds
construct cup-shaped nests (many of them very pad-
like and shallow) in bushes and trees, often placing
them at the extremity of a branch forty feet from the
ground. As fairly representative the nests of the fol-

OPEN NESTS 199

lowing species may be mentioned—Graucalus macii,
Campophaga sykesi, and Pericrocotus cinereus. Con-
siderable diversity characterises the architecture of the
Fly-catchers (Muscicapidze), an exclusively Old World
group where they are most abundantly distributed
in the tropics. As we have already seen, some of
these birds nest in holes, some others construct
domed nests, therefore do not require consideration
here. Of the three hundred or more species, how-
ever, a considerable number make open nests, a de-
scription of a few of which we will now. proceed to give:
Two of the most familiar of these belong to European
species, one of which is a common summer visitor
to the British Islands. This is the Spotted Flycatcher
(Muscicapa grisola). The cup-shaped nest of this bird
is placed in a great variety of situations, one of the
most familiar being in a shallow knot-hole close to a
tree trunk. The small and loosely fabricated nest is
made of dry grass and moss, cemented or bound
together with spiders’ webs and garnished with wing
cases and sometimes lichen, and lined with roots,
hair, and feathers, one of these materials often being
exclusively employed. The second species is the Red-
breasted Flycatcher (M. parva), a bird that breeds no
nearer to our area than Germany. It builds its
beautiful little cup-shaped nest in a very similar
situation to that of the preceding species, forming
it externally of moss garnished with a few bits of
lichen or one or two small feathers, and lining it

200 BIRDS’ NESTS

with dry grass and hair. Some of the nests of the
tropical species are extremely pretty little structures.
The favourite breeding places of these birds in the
tropics are amongst the dense masses of forest drift
that accumulate in the clumps of bamboo, or in the
drooping branches of low trees, or in the tufts of moss
and the various vines or creepers that hang from the
trees. Of the nest of an Australian species, the Frill-
necked Flycatcher (Avses candidor), Mr D. Le Souéf
writes as follows: “Their beautiful open nest has
the appearance of a hanging basket, and is fastened
between two upright hanging vines by cobwebs. The
interior is composed of fine dark-coloured rootlets,
and the exterior of small light-coloured twigs, rather
loosely put together, and ornamented on the outside
with green lichen, the whole being lightly covered
with cobweb.” This nest swung in the vines about
thirty feet from the ground. Another and much
more open and flat type of nest is made also by
an Australian species, the Yellow-breasted Flycatcher
(Macherirhynchus flaviventer). A nest of this bird
built in the fork of a slender projecting branch about
fourteen feet from the ground is a shallow structure
composed externally of twigs bound together in
places by cobwebs, the latter also being used to
secure the nest to the supporting branches, and
lined exclusively with curly vine tendrils. The depth
of the egg cavity in this nest is only half an inch,
and the complete diameter of the entire structure

OPEN NESTS 201

but three and a quarter inches. Yet another
Australian species, the Broad-billed Flycatcher
(Myiagra latirostris), makes an open nest often in a
mangrove tree overhanging a deep stream. In some
genera the architecture is remarkably uniform. Thus
the Fan-tailed Flycatchers (Rhipidura) are distributed
over the Oriental and Australian regions in a large
number of species. The nests are delicate little cups,
saddled on to horizontal branches (often dead boughs
in very exposed situations). The external materials,
which are closely interwoven or felted, and bound
together with spiders’ webs, the latter in some cases
covering the outside of the nest, consist of various fibres
and dead grass leaves, the lining of finer grasses and
fibres. Then in the genera Zeocephus and Hypothy-
mis we have cup-shaped nests of moss felted together
with spiders’ webs, and lined with fibres of different
fine kinds, and placed in forking branches in the
lower growths of vegetation in forests. In Muscica-
pula the nest is sometimes very slight, composed of
roots, and lined with broad leaves. In Terpsiphone
the nest is often delicately fashioned of moss lined
with hair, and placed in some low fork of a small tree
in the densest parts of the tropical forests.

Many of the nests of the Swallows (Hirundinid)
are shallow, open, and saucer-shaped, composed of
mud, straws, and lined with grass, feathers, and so
forth, but as they are invariably more or less con-
cealed in covered sites, it will not be necessary to

202 BIRDS’ NESTS

describe them in the present chapter. We therefore
pass on to the Tyrant Birds (Tyrannidz), another
family of birds strictly confined to the New World,
many members of which construct the open type of
nest, either placed amongst vertical growing twigs
and branches, or slung hammock-wise from some
horizontal or drooping forking limb. The chief
materials employed by these birds are twigs, fibres,
grass, moss, wool, hair, and lichens, cob-webs being
used for binding purposes. As this family contains
some four hundred species, distributed over nearly
the whole of America, and especially abundant in the
tropics, a vast amount of variation in the architecture
is presented, in order to bring the nest into harmony
with an equally extensive diversity of conditions. It
would therefore be impossible with the space at our
disposal here even to describe the salient character-
istics of such a large assemblage of nests. Our next
family, also confined to the Neotropical region, con-
tains the Chatterers (Cotingidz), in which there are
several very distinct types of architecture. Some of
these have already been described, as, for instance,
that of Rupicola (conf. p. 103); others come into the
class of domed nests dealt with in a future chapter,
whilst others yet again are open and cup-shaped, and
must be included in our present division. These
latter are placed in the forks of trees, and formed of
moss and lichens. Passing over the Pittas with their
domed globular nests, we reach yet another great

OPEN NESTS 203

family of South American birds, the Wood - hewers
(Dendrocolaptidz). In no other family do we find a
greater diversity of architecture, the most striking
examples, however, belonging to such types that will
require consideration elsewhere. The nests, however,
of the Ant Thrushes (Formicariidz) are generally of
an opentype. This group is also peculiar to the same
region. They place their nests in trees and bushes.
These nests are shallow saucer rather than cup-
shaped in form, and composed of grasses, fibres,
moss, roots, wool, and hair. Lastly, we may allude to
the family of Wren-like birds (Pteroptochidz), chiefly
confined to the temperate regions of South America,
in which the architecture presents not a little diversity,
although the group is such a small one, numbering no
more than about a score of species. Some of these
birds nest in burrows, others make domed nests of
grass, whilst certain species construct an open nest
composed chiefly of sticks.

The length of the present chapter bears significant
testimony to the prevalence of the open or cup-shaped
style of architecture amongst birds. If the number
and variety of species building these open nests can
be taken as any indication, we are, | think, fairly
justified in coming to the conclusion that such a type
is the most natural style of architecture in the entire
avine class; and also that all divergence from that
specially normal type has been caused by a vast
variety of exceptional circumstances and conditions

204 BIRDS’ NESTS

under which the reproduction of the affected species
is conducted, the most important of which is most
probably the concealment of showy or conspicuous
plumage, the elusion of certain enemies, and adapta-
tion to certain climates. Unfortunately in a vast
number of instances, especially amongst the tropical
species (notably those in South America), the habits
of these open nest-building species are nearly if not
quite unknown, as are likewise the nests themselves
of not a few, so that we are as yet quite unable to
comprehend the philosophy of their nidification—the
relation between the open nest and the conditions of
existence of its feathered architect. In a great many
cases (in fact we may safely say in the majority) these
open nests belong to the largest and most powerful
of avine forms—to species that require no special
protection, well able to defend their nests from
ordinary enemies, or that derive their safety by build-
ing in societies, or in very inaccessible situations, such
as in marshes or deep trackless forests; or yet again
(more especially in tropical countries) by placing their
homes in isolated trees or groves, which predatory
creatures are not likely to visit under ordinary cir-
cumstances. Then, on the other hand, many of these
open nest-builders, especially the weaker, smaller, and
least aggressive species, take great pains to conceal
them ina variety of ways, one of the most remark-
able being that of mimicry, or assimilating the outer
materials with surrounding objects. I have pointed

OPEN NESTS 205

out a great many of these instances, one of the most
interesting and illustrative being the nest of the Com-
mon Chaffinch. Other instances may be found in
such species as the Minivets (Campephagidz), the nest
of one of these birds found in China (the Pericrocotus
griseigularis of Gould) being a small cup made of a
certain filiform lichen, a few pine needles, and a flat
lichen with finely scalloped edges, reddish brown
underneath, with hairy black roots. The nest is
completely plastered outside, and partly inside with
this latter material, only a bit or two of moss being
added, and has in consequence a peculiar black and
green appearance. The whole is cemented together
with cob-webs, and placed on the branch of a pine
tree, where it is in perfect harmony with surrounding
objects. Then we might mention as an instance the
nest of Tharrhaleus jerdoni, a species breeding in
Kashmir. A nest of this bird placed on a pollard
birch tree about eight feet from the ground was made
of moss, birch bark, reed stalks, and lined with hair
and a few feathers. Its external mosaic of bits of
birch bark, with which it was completely covered,
made it exactly resemble the adjoining bough, and
rendered it “very difficult to discover” (Ibis, 1898,
p.27). The nests of the Humming-birds supply us with
many more interesting examples, as we have already
noted. One of the most remarkable of these is fur-
nished by the nest of a Humming-bird (Orthorhynchus
cristatus) called in Barbados the “ Doctor Bird.” Col.

206 BIRDS’ NESTS

Feilden discovered a nest of this species fastened to
the edge of a leaf of a prickly pear, and was so com-
pletely deceived by its general resemblance to the
fruit growing on the same bush that he could scarcely
believe it was not a “pear,” his attention being
attracted in the first instance by seeing a female
crouching apparently upon the top of one. Various
other instances belonging to different families remain
to be described in future pages. Another equally
significant fact in the philosophy of these open nests
is that the majority of them are made by species in
which the female (or both male and female) are dull
in colour, whilst the eggs are generally spotted, very
exceptionally white and devoid of markings. In such
cases where the eggs are of pale and conspicuous
tints, we find that the female is protectively coloured
as she broods over them, or when left unguarded in
the nest during her absence, she carefully covers them
with bits of vegetation or down until she returns.

CHAPTER VI

DOMED AND ROOFED NESTS

207

4

CHAPTER VI

DOMED AND ROOFED NESTS

Nest of the Hammer-head—Domed Nests of the Rails—Of certain Swifts—
Of various Parrots—Of the Lark-heeled Cuckoos—Nests of the Broad-bills—
Of the Lyre Birds—Domed type a dominant one in the Order Passeriformes—Of
the Magpies—Of certain Starlings—Of the Meadow Starling—Of the Weaver-
birds—Domed nests of certain Tanagers—Of the Sugar Birds—Of certain
Sparrows—Other domed-building Finches—Of the Bush Larks—Of certain
American Wood Warblers—Of the Sun Birds—Nests of the Sun Birds resembling
those of the Social Spiders—Nests of the Flower-peckers—Of certain Titmice—
Of the American Bush Tits—Of the Hill Tits—Of the Rock Nuthatches—Of
the ‘‘ Palm Sparrow”—Of the Willow Warblers—Of the Fantail Warblers—Of
the Dippers—Of Origma rubricata—Of the Wrens—Of the Timeliide—Of
various Pomatorhini—Of various species of Pellorneum—Triple types of nest—
Nests of certain Flycatchers—Of various Swallows—Of certain Tyrant Birds—
Of certain Chatterers—Of the Pittas—Of various Wood Hewers—Of the Oven
Bird—Of certain species of Pteroptochide—General Remarks.

In the present chapter we are introduced to a much
more complicated style of architecture than any that
we have hitherto had to consider. Not that this
domed-roofed type of nest is any indication of greater
intelligence; it can only be regarded as another of
the many methods that birds adopt for safety, a mere
divergence or variation in the one grand utilitarian
plan of avine architecture. In our review of these
domed and roofed nests we shall again find it most
convenient to confine ourselves to a taxonomic
arrangement.

It is a somewhat remarkable fact that we have no
instance of a web-footed bird building a domed or

° 309

210 BIRDS’ NESTS

roofed nest, and it is not until we reach the order
Pelargiformes, containing the Herons, Storks, and
so forth, that an example of such a type of
architecture occurs. Even then this is the work
of a species that can only be regarded as a most
aberrant member of the order. This bird is the
curious Hammer-head (Scopus umbretta), an inhabitant
of most parts of Africa south of the Sahara. Although
but the size of a Raven, it makes an enormous nest
six feet in diameter, which may either be placed on a
ledge of rock or in the branches of a tree. In form it
is dome-shaped or roofed, and is made principally of
sticks, although dry grass and reeds form a minor
portion of the materials. The entrance hole is at the
side, the most concealed side being selected. This
nest is said to contain no less than three chambers,
each with an entrance so small that the owner can
only enter with difficulty. The innermost chamber is
said to be reserved for the eggs and purposes of nidi-
fication ; the central one is a kind of playing place for
the young birds when sufficiently matured ; whilst the
front one is used as a look-out station by the parent
birds. It should be stated, however, that the Messrs
Woodward, in describing a nest of this species found
on a ledge of a cliff overhanging a river in Zululand,
do not make any allusion to these three internal
apartments, but merely remark that the only way to
get at the four white eggs it contained was to remove
the roof. Domed and roofed nests are found in no

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 211

other group or order of aquatic birds with the one
solitary exception of the Rails (Ralliformes). In this
order, as we have already seen, the normal type of nest
is an open one, but in a few exceptional cases a domed
nest is made. One of these domed nest-building Rails
is the Porzana cinereiceps, of Lawrence, an American
species. Mr Charles Richmond met with this bird
breeding commonly in the plantations on the Escon-
dido river, in Central America, and states that the
nest is placed in grass about a foot from the ground.
He describes the nest as almost globular in shape
with a small entrance in the side, and made of dry
grass, lined with a broad-leaved grass.

There are a few builders of domed or roofed nests
amongst the Coraciiformes. These belong to the
family of Swifts (Cypselidz). We have already had
occasion to describe certain nests of these birds in
our chapter on the covered or concealed type. The
majority of these birds appear to conceal their nests
in rocks, caves, hollow trees or buildings, still there
are certain forms associated under the generic term
Panyptila, which construct tubular or purse-shaped
structures. A species inhabiting Guatemala is said
to form a tubular nest of seeds, each one stuck
together with the parents’ saliva, which latter is also
employed to attach the structure to a rock. Another
of these birds, the Cayenne Swift (P. cayanensis), is
said to build a long purse-like nest. Singularly
enough we have the domed type of nest occasionally

212 BIRDS’ NESTS

occurring in the Parrots (Psittaciformes), and also as
exceptionally, or even still more so, in the Cuckoos
(Cuculiformes). There are certain Parrots which are
said to build globular nests, placing them amongst
tall grass. So far as is known, the only domed nest-
builders amongst the Cuckoos are tl 2 Lark-heeled
Cuckoos belonging to the genus Centropus. These
birds frequent well-wooded districts in the Old World
tropics, and usually place their nests in some thorn-
bearing bush or tree, but in other cases select a
site amongst herbage on the ground. The nest of
Burchell’s Larked-heeled Cuckoo (Centropus burchellt),
according to observations furnished to Mr Guy
Marshall, by Mr Darling, who met with this species
breeding in Mashonaland, is placed in a low thorn
bush about six feet from the ground, and made of
dry grass. It is rather roughly constructed, domed in
shape, with a large entrance hole at the side pointing
away from the prevailing winds. Of the Black-breasted
Larked-heeled Cuckoo (C. x/7vorufus), Mr Darling
states that he took a nest in the long thick grass
in a vlei, so cunningly concealed, that had not the
parent bird flown out he would never have discovered
it. This nest was “woven out of the living grass,
so that it kept green all the time, and when I stood
only a couple of yards away it was impossible to
discern the nest. This was situated about two feet
from the ground, domed, and with a small aperture
at the side, the grass being: very finely and carefully

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 213

woven in small plaits or wisps and not in single
blades, and the tops protruding freely for some
distance above the nest” (Ibis, 1900, p. 253). Another
species, the well-known Indian “Crow Pheasant”
(C. rufipennis), makes a nest like an enormous ball
of twigs and grass, lined with grass and leaves with
an entrance at the side. The purse-shaped nests of
the Broad-bills (Eurylemi), a small order of tropical
species ranging over India, Burma, Malaya, and Java,
are usually suspended from the points of tapering
branches, especially from bamboos. Here may be
mentioned another aberrant group, the Lyre-birds,
raised to the dignity of an order (Menurz) by some
systematists, yet only allowed family rank (Menuridz)
by others. So far as is known, the domed type of
nest prevails in this group. This nest of Menura
superba is built near to or on the ground, at the base
of a rock or tree, and is made of closely woven fibres
and roots, and lined with feathers. This central nest
appears to be surrounded by a mass of sticks, grass,
moss, and leaves, an opening in the side affording
means of entrance and exit. The nest of another
species, Menura alberti, is made on a similar plan,
but the materials are almost entirely composed of
long twigs and thin sticks.

The domed and roofed type of nest is a very
dominant one in the architecture of the Passeri-
formes. Indeed, with the few exceptions which we
have just noticed, this domed or roofed procreant

214 BIRDS’ NESTS

cradle is practically a peculiar feature of the order.
It is, however, by no means confined to any group
or section of the Passeres, but has been adopted by
an immense variety of forms, probably from similar
motives. Neither can it, in many cases, be regarded
as typical, for it is found to occur in a most irregular
manner, even in genera where another type of archi-
tecture is the prevailing feature. We shall also find
that in shape and materials these domed and roofed
homes present a very great amount of diversity, as
they also do in the situations they are made to occupy.

Beginning with the Crows (Corvidz), as we did in
our review of the open nest type of the Passeres,
we find that the Magpies (Pica) are the only species
that construct a domed, or rather in their case, a
“roofed” nest. The nest of the Common Magpie
(P. caudata) may be taken as the most familiar
example. This handsome bird is still a common
and widely distributed one in the British Islands,
and its bulky nest is one of the most familiar bird
homes in the woodland districts. Some of these
nests become quite historic, being tenanted year by
year, added to or repaired each season, and reaching
a very large size as each season’s work accumulates.
The nest of the Magpie may be found in almost every
kind of forest tree, whilst tall thorn bushes, hedges,
and isolated trees in the fields or open are frequently
selected. The height at which it is placed is equally
variable; it may be built in the tops of the loftiest

MAGPIES AND NEST.

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 215

trees, or in lower sites no more than six or eight feet
from the ground. It is a large and bulky structure,
often a conspicuous object for a mile or more, and
when finished is completely covered in with a dome
or roof. The outer part of the nest is first formed
of sticks, which are cemented together with lumps
of clay or mud. Then follows a substantial lining of
the latter materials. After this is completed, the
huge dome is built over, dead thorn branches being
generally selected, a well-disguised or masked hole
or passage being left on the side, near the top or
rim of the nest cavity, for ingress. Very often the
nest is left at this stage for a day or so to allow
the mud to dry, and finally a thick lining of fibrous
roots is added. Possibly some of the allied species
may use grass for a lining, but in our islands roots
seem to be invariably used.

There are no domed nest-builders, so far as is
known, amongst the Birds of Paradise, but the type
is again forthcoming in the Starlings (Sturnidz),
Many of the more typical species of Starlings build
in covered sites or conceal their nests in holes of
walls, rocks, and trees, but some of the less familiar
and tropical forms construct globular homes. Some
of these are pendulous, and will be described in the
following chapter. Passing over the Drongos with
their open nests, and the Orioles, in which they are
also open but slung hammock-wise, we reach the
American family of Hang-nests (Icteridz). Some of

216 BIRDS’ NESTS

these birds, as we have already seen, build open
cup-shaped nests; many of the others have a pen-
dulous cradle, whilst in others it is domed. As an
instance of the latter, we may mention the nest of
the well-known Meadow Starling (Sturnella magna),
which builds a globular nest of grass, placing it
amongst vegetation on the ground.

Some of the most remarkable of these domed
nest-builders are to be found amongst the very aptly
named Weaver-birds (Ploceidz) or Weaver Finches, a
group (containing some 250 species) which is essen-
tially a feature of the bird-life of the Ethiopian
region, although represented in the Oriental and
Australian regions, but not in America. With these
birds weaving is little less than a mania, even
certain species when caged apparently deriving great
pleasure from twisting strings and fibres about their
prison bars, and as exponents of the art they are
certainly unrivalled in the avine world. Some of
the curious cradles they so dexterously put together
fall more naturally into our division devoted to
pendulous nests, but a few of them require con"
sideration here. The nest of the Blue-breasted
Waxbill (Estrilda angolensis), a species breeding in
Mashonaland, is a domed structure, with an entrance
at the side, made of dry grass with no special lining.
This is often built in a mimosa bush. A very inter-
esting feature about the nidification of this bird is
(as was, I believe, first recorded by Mr Guy Mar-

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 217

shall) that the nest is almost invariably placed near
or almost touching one or more of the hanging nests
of a powerful social wasp (Belenogaster rufipennis), as
though the little weaver regarded the insect in the
light of a protector from certain enemies. It is still
more remarkable that the same habit has been
observed in South America (conf. p. 267). Another
Weaver (Spermestes nana), known in Madagascar as
the “Dwarf Rice-bird,” builds one of the simpler
types of “woven” nests, placing it almost anywhere
like our own House Sparrow, in thatch or trees, or
even in the deserted nests of other birds. Coming
within the present division, however, of domed or
roofed nests, is one of the most wonderful structures
in the entire series of avine architecture. This
is the home (or rather village would, perhaps, be the
better term) of the Sociable Weaver-bird (Philheterus
socius), another African species. It is the habit of
these little birds to live in communities, and to make
what we may call co-operative dwellings, many pairs
gathering the materials and constructing a huge
dome or mushroom-shaped structure amongst the
branches of a camel-thorn or other suitable tree.
Travellers have often mistaken these nests for the
grass-roofed huts of the natives, a pardonable blunder,
when we are assured that many of them contain more
than a cartload of grass, and accommodate from one
hundred to three hundred pairs of birds! The under
surface of this structure is nearly flat, and is full of

218 BIRDS’ NESTS

holes, in which the Weaver-birds lay their eggs and
rear their young. These republican nests are per-
manent dwelling-places, used year after year for the
same purpose, and added to or repaired as circum-
stances demand. Some of the Oxbirds (Textor) make
very similar structures, but as these birds do not
appear ever to live in such large communities, their
nests are much smaller, made of sticks and grass,
amongst which in holes the ordinary grass nest of
each pair is placed. The permanency of their occupa-
tion, however, is the same as the preceding. The
domed or globular grass or reed formed nests of
certain Weavers in the genera Euplectes and Ploceus
might be mentioned as further examples of the least-
or non-pendulous types. Some of these are generally
attached to one or more reed stems hanging over
water, whilst certain species of Foudia build their
pear-shaped or oval and roofed grass and fibre-woven
nests amongst the slender drooping twigs of tamarind
trees or mimosas. We had occasion briefly to allude
to the open nests of the Tanagers (Tanagride).
Exceptionally, however, a domed or roofed type is
found, as, for instance, that of the Central American
Arremon aurantiirostris. The nest of this species is
described by Mr Richmond as being very bulky and
slightly raised from the ground. It is made on a
base of dead leaves, plant stems and similar dry
materials being the chief ones employed, whilst the
whole structure is roofed over and covered with

DOMED*OR ROOFED NESTS 219

living ferns and mosses which most effectually conceal
it from view.

Passing notice may be given to the nests of the
Sugar-birds (Czrebidz). These are somewhat loosely
formed structures formed of dry grass, roots, fibres,
feathers and vegetable downs, etc., domed in form,
and in some cases with a projecting porch. It will
also be necessary to revert to the architecture of the
Finches. As we have already seen, the usual type in
this family is open and cup-shaped, but in some
species a domed type is adopted. Some of the
special instances of this domed type also illustrate
in a remarkable manner the wonderful adaptability
displayed by birds in constructing their procreant
cradles. The domed nest-builders in the Finch family
include the Sparrows, and our own familiar House
Sparrow (Passer domesticus) furnishes one of the most
interesting examples. This bird—a past master of
the art of making itself at home—has two very
distinct types of nest, an open one, when built in a
hole, a domed one when placed in trees or ivy, and so
forth. This latter nest is most skilfully made, and
is generally a somewhat loose globe about the size of
a man’s head formed of grass, straws, plant stems,
etc., warmly lined with wool, hair, feathers, and a
variety of other soft material. Incidentally, I may
mention that House Sparrows, during the present
December (1900) have been lining their nests under
my eaves with the dry silky flowers of pampas grass.

220 BIRDS’ NESTS

These domed nests are in use almost all the year
round, brood after brood being reared in them, and
they are also used as roosting-places during the colder
months. So intricately are they woven that the
discovery of the entrance hole is impossible. Another
dome-building Finch is the West Indian Phonipara
zena, which places its grass-formed nests (very
similar to that of the Willow Wren) in the tufted head
of spines on the top of a pine-apple; another the
Central American Embernagra striaticeps, which forms
a bulky roofed nest of dry leaves and stalks lined with
grass in a fan palm leaf a few feet from the ground.

The Larks (Alaudidz) are another group of open
cup-shaped nest-builders, but as already shown there
are certain exceptions even here. The Bush Larks
(Mirafra) are like the other species terrestrial in their
nidification, but form their grass-made nests on a
domed model, concealing them amongst herbage.
The same remarks may be said to apply to the Wood
Warblers (Mniotiltidz), some of the species (Siwrus)
arching over their nests, or even constructing domed
nests, as in the case of the Yellow-bird (Dendreca
capitalis).

In the nests of the Sun-birds (Nectariniidz) we are
introduced to a type of architecture thoroughly
characteristic of the present division of domed or
roofed abodes. These nests, however, present a con-
siderable amount of variation in their model, ranging
from the open cup-shaped type of birds in the genera

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 221

Arachnothera and A2thopyga through the hooded
or porched types to that of the globular one. Many
writers consider these nests to belong to the pendulous
type of avine architecture, but in my views of the
definition of a penduline cradle they certainly do not
present the peculiarities of it (conf. p. 253). The usual
sites for the nests of the Sun-birds are the extremities
of slender branches, several twigs often being utilised
for support, or the under surface of large broad
leaves and fern fronds. Single trees on open plains
are selected by many species; others prefer forest or
clearings. As a rule, these nests are neatly made,
and the materials consist of dry grasses, mosses,
fibres, roots and spiders’ webs, lichens, cocoons, bits
of bark or even paper forming a garniture when such
is employed, whilst the linings may consist of hair,
feathers and vegetable downs. Not the least interest-
ing fact about many of the nests of the Sun-birds is
the manner which they are made to resemble sur-
rounding objects. A detailed description of one or
two nests may now be given. The Madagascar Sun-
bird (Nectarinia notata), as if in imitation of its own
favourite attitude of suspending itself from the twigs
like a Titmouse, hangs its nest from the drooping
branch of some mimosa tree. In shape it is some-
thing like a bag or pocket with an opening in the side
or front. It is made of fine roots, dry leaves and
stems of creeping plants, and lined with the softest
spiders’ webs. Another species (Cinnyris aldabrensis)

222 BIRDS’ NESTS

peculiar to Aldabra Island suspends its nest from the
branches of a mangrove or other bush near the shore,
or even from a stalk of grass or euphorbia, hanging
in the chasms of the coral rocks. Dr Abbot has
recorded his observations of the nest-building of this
species as follows: “The nest is neatly constructed
of fibres of bark, generally mangrove. The female
selects a suitable hanging leaf or branch, and attaches
some fibres of bark firmly to it; other fibres are then
attached to this until an oval mass is formed; this
is then opened out by the bird entering her head and
then her body into the mass. More material is now
added to the outside, the bird occasionally entering
the cavity and enlarging it by kicking and flutter-
ing; finally the inside is lined with feathers. The
construction of fhe nest occupies about eight
days” (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xviii. p. 536).
Another remarkably pretty nest is made by the
Cinnyris habessinicus, which is also hung from a
drooping branch, and is purse or pocket shaped, with
a protecting hood, or porch over the entrance. A nest
obtained by Mr Lort Phillips, in Somaliland, was
composed entirely of spiders’ webs garnished all over
with small empty cocoons. Another species, the
Yellow-breasted Sun-bird (C. jugularis), breeding in
the Philippine Islands, makes a similarly porched
nest, the hooded entrance being on the side, com-
posed of fibres, dry grass, and leaves, cemented
together with spiders’ webs, and lined with finer

NEST OF MAGNIFICENT SUN BIRD (2 THOPYGA MAGNIFICA).

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 223

grass and vegetable down. The Magnificent Sun-bird
(Ethopyga magnifica)! of the same locality, builds a
nest on the same hooded plan, of fine grass and roots,
palm fibres, and bits of dead leaves, bound together
with webs, and lined with dead flowers of various
grasses and seeds. The nest of the White-bellied
Sun-bird (4. bella) also from these islands, is, how-
ever, a much longer structure, although porched in
the same way, with a pendent mass of material hang-
ing from the bottom. Other species in this genus
are very fond of attaching their nests to tall fronds of
bracken and ferns. Some of these nests are pear-
shaped, others are oval, and both types want the
hood or porch, such a common feature in the more
typical species. The nest of the Indian AEthopyga
ignicauda is often attached to a bracken frond, and
is made of vegetable down, and bits of green moss
bound together with webs and a few long strips of
grass, the latter being wound round the nest and
utilised to bind or fasten it to the supporting frond.
The entrance is near the top, and the whole structure,
only four or five inches in length, looks like an un-
usually full-shaped pear. The nest of the allied
Ethopyga dabryi is oval in shape, with an entrance
near the middle, also hung to a bracken frond, the
latter being interwoven with the roof material, the
whole being formed of vegetable down and long strips
of fine dead grass. I have already alluded to the

1 Unfortunately made to appear in the illustration pendulous.

224 BIRDS’ NESTS

wonderful manner in which some of the nests of the
Sun-birds are made to resemble or harmonise in
colour with surrounding objects, but I may be for-
given for quoting a very remarkable instance recorded
by Mr Marshall in the Zoologist (1898). His observa-
tions concern the nests of three South African species
of Sun-birds—Cinnyris gutturalis, C. chalybzeus, and
Anthodizta collaris—which appear to be constructed
specially to resemble certain nests of the social spiders
(Stegodyphus). He writes:—“I have watched the
construction in the case of these three species, and
the nests are all built in a practically similar manner.
No attempt is made at concealment, and they hang
suspended from the outermost twigs of bushes on low
trees at no great distance from the ground—positions
which are equally affected by the social spiders. The
ground-work of the dome-shaped nest, with its small
porch, is composed of interwoven grass, and the
exterior is covered with leaves, twigs, etc., bound on
with cobwebs, so that the structure, when finished,
has a generally unkempt appearance eminently sug-
gestive of the abode of Stegodyphus. Indeed, I have
been deceived myself in this respect more than once.
In Natal I have observed A. collaris and C. chalybeus
collecting webs from the snares of the large Nephile ;
but a pair of C. gutturalis, which built within a few
feet of the door of one of my huts on the Umfali
River, used only the webs of Stegodyphus.” Lastly,
we may mentiom that the nests of the Sun-birds

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 225

forming the genus 2thopyga frequently so closely
resemble masses of dead leaves and other forest
refuse or débris, amongst which they are placed,
that their discovery is most difficult. The South
African Nectarinia famosa furnishes another example.

As we have already seen, the nests of some of the
Flower-peckers (Diczeidz) are open and cup-shaped,
but the normal type in this small family is very
similar to the domed or roofed cradles of the Sun-
birds, and attached to drooping branches or to the
stems of big leaves. A Burmese species, Diczeum
cruentatum, forms a lovely little nest about the same
size and shape as a Goose’s egg, made of the finest
vegetable fibres, with a small entrance on the side.
Another, dwelling in the Philippine Islands, the
Diczum cinereigulare, forms a bag-shaped nest of
green moss, cemented with webs and lined with
down from young fern fronds, fastening it to the
slender twigs of some tree. There are also pendulous
nests in this family, as will be described in the
following chapter (conf. p. 256). Then amongst the
Titmice (Paridz) we have some very beautiful ex-
amples of domed architecture. Some of these birds
build thoroughly typical pendulous nests, and must
be reserved for our closing chapter, but the domed
cradle builders have two very characteristic represen-
tatives in the British avifauna. The Long-tailed Tit-
mice (Acredula) build exquisitely beautiful nests.
None of these is handsomer than that of the British

P

226 BIRDS’ NESTS

Long-tailed Tit (A. vosea). This beautiful example
of avine architecture is placed in bushes, hedges,
thickets or trees, often those of an evergreen char-
acter, and may be as low as five or as many as
fifty feet from the ground. So elaborately is it made
that nearly a fortnight is taken up in its construction.
It is globular in shape, with an entrance hole on one
side near the top. The outer materials are chiefly
green moss and variously coloured lichens (the tint
varying a good deal with the situation) cemented and
felted together with spiders’ webs and often bits of
wool; the lining is chiefly a large quantity of feathers
and some hair. The general substance of the nest
very closely resembles that of the Chaffinch’s cradle,
and the outside is usually made to resemble surround-
ing objects in tint, with a view to its concealment.
Some nests are studded all over with small, empty
cocoons; others with bits of grey, or green, or golden-
yellow lichen, others with cobwebs, and so forth. I
have seen a nest of this bird with a kind of flap over
the entrance hole which had to be raised each time
the little owners entered or left their ball-like home.
I should say that the birds build upwards, and gradu-
ally encircle themselves with the outer shell. The
other British example is the nest of the Great Titmouse
(Parus major). This is exceptionally interesting, be-
cause the Great Titmouse generally makes an open,
cup-shaped nest in a hole, but sometimes it selects a
deserted home of a Crow or a Magpie, or the old drey

ACREDULA ROSEA)

(

NEST OF THE LONG-TAILED TIT

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 227

of a squirrel, or even builds in some crevice amongst
the sticks beneath a nest of a rook. In these cases
it forms a perfectly globular nest, generally of green
moss and warmly lined with feathers. The American
Bush Tits (Psaltriparus) also make domed nests. That
of the Lead-coloured Bush Tit (P. plumbeus), first dis-
covered by Lieutenant Benson in Southern Arizona,
an account of which was recorded by Bendire in the
Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum (1887, pp.
557, 558), is described as more or less gourd-like in
form, and woven into and supported by small twigs
and branches of oak and mesquite trees. The en-
trance is on the side near the top. The whole nest
is about the size of that of our own Long-tailed Tit.
Externally it is made of dry curled-up leaves of the
white sage, vegetable down, spiders’ webs, bits of moss
and lichens, and thickly lined with soft, small feathers.
Some of the Hill Tits (Liotrichidze) build cradles very
similar in type to those of the Goldcrests. That, for
instance, made by Yuhina pallida, a Chinese species,
is described by Mr De La Touche as a cradle of moss
and moss roots, with an inner cup or lining of fibres
and fine roots. The entrance is at either end of the
nest. This cradle or hammock-like nest is generally
suspended under a moss grown branch of a palm or
other tree, or even from the bamboo thatch under the
eaves of ashed. A nest of an Indian species, Yuhina
nigrimentum, is very similar, and described by Mr
Stuart Baker as being built between two long pendent

228 BIRDS’ NESTS

masses of lichen hanging from the underside of a
branch, the two ends of the cradle being prolonged
and interwoven with the drooping tree moss. It was
made almost entirely of moss roots, with a few small
bits of dead moss bound together with cobwebs and
lined with the very finest stems of grasses and one
flower head of the same. Then, again, the nests of
the Rock Nuthatches are very interesting. The nest
of the Syrian Rock Nuthatch (Siéta syriaca), for in-
stance, is attached to rocks and domed, or rather
semi-globular, like that of the House Martin, with a
long spout-like entrance about an inch in diameter.
The external part of this nest is made of mud, the
interior being lined with a large quantity of felted
hair. It is very strongly and solidly built, time in-
creasing its stability, for in some cases at least it
is used for the same purpose year after year.

Passing on to the Waxwings (Ampelide), we have
already seen that the normal type of nest is open and
cup-shaped, but the home of one of the more aberrant
members of the family is not only a very curious one,
but owing to its shape requires notice here. This is
the nest of the so-called “Palm Sparrow” (Dulus
dominicus), a species inhabiting San Domingo, and to
which island it is apparently confined. Several pairs
of these birds build in company, forming a kind of
co-operative nest, like some of the Weaver Finches
already described. These nests are described by Dr
Christy as quite an armful of twigs interwoven into a

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 229

compact mass in the head or crown of a palm, or on
the cluster of berries just below it. In this ball of
sticks there are usually three or four nests, which are
merely burrows into the main mass of sticks, lined at
the end with finer twigs.

I have already had occasion to deal at some length
with the nests of the Warblers (Sylviinz), a group
which presents considerable diversity in its architec-
ture even in the open or cup-shaped type. We have
now to consider the domed or roofed nests made by
other species included in this sub-family. To British
ornithologists the most familiar examples of these
are furnished by the Willow Warblers (Phylloscopus).
These little birds construct domed or semi-domed
nests, placing them amongst herbage on the ground or
amongst vegetation a little distance above it. Some
of the species, as for instance the British Willow Wren
(P. trochilus) and the Chiff-chaff (P. rufus), make their
nests of dry grass, scraps of moss, dead leaves and
roots, and line them with quantities of feathers and a
little hair. Others, like the equally well-known English
Wood Wren (P. sibilatrix), make a similar half-globular
nest, but do not use any feathers in the lining, only a
small quantity of hair. But even more interesting
are the wonderful little homes of the Fantail Warblers
(Cisticola). These species build globular nests amongst
long grass, and possess the curious habit of sewing
together the tall stems of herbage into a canopy above
them. It must be admitted, however, that some of

230 BIRDS’ NESTS

these Fantails display more skill in this tent-making
process than others. One of the most famous is the
South European species Cisticola cursitans; another,
the Ground Fantail (C. terrestris) of Mashonaland.
These birds make beautiful nests of vegetable down
and spiders’ webs, forming them into bag- or pocket-
like structures attached at the sides to tall stems of
grass, which latter are eventually drawn together by
a series of knotted fibres into a sheltering roof. The
Grey-backed Fantail (C. subruficapilla), another Masho-
naland species, is said to breed amongst small bushes
growing on termite heaps, and to make a domed and
slightly-porched nest of grass and webs, lining it with
white cotton down. The extraordinary variation in
the eggs of some of these Fantails is not the least
interesting portion of their nidification. There are
several very distinct types in the eggs of the European
species—white or blue, spotted with rufous, and some-
times blue or white, without any markings at all.
Some of the species in more or less closely
allied genera, such as the Australian Chthonicola,
Sphenzacus, Dasyornis, and the more aberrant
Malurus, also build domed nests, but the limits of
my space prevent more detailed allusion to them
here.

So far as is known, none of the typical Thrushes
(Turdinz) builds a domed nest, but the aberrant
Dippers (Cinclidz) are famous for this type of archi-
tecture. The Dippers, although a small group, are

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 231

very widely distributed, being found in the mountain-
ous parts of the Palearctic region and in the Rocky
Mountains and Andes in the New World. They are
dwellers on the banks of swift-flowing rivers and
streams, and all seem to possess the habit of making
large globular nests, which are often placed so near
to or even beneath cascades and running water, that
the outer materials are kept in a moist and green
condition. The nest of the British Dipper (Cinclus
aquaticus) may be taken as thoroughly typical of all
the rest. The favourite site for the nest is in some
crevice of the rocks on the side of a gorge under a
bridge, in the masonry of a sluice or weir (the latter
situations being capital examples of adaptability), or
amongst the exposed roots of a tree. The external
materials of this globular nest (which in some cases
may be as many as eighteen inches in length) consist
principally of green moss (in many cases sphagnum
is used), which harmonises in tint with surrounding
objects, strengthened here and there with grass stems,
especially round the circular entrance hole. Inside
this ball of moss another and a cup-shaped nest is
formed, consisting of dry grass, roots, and fine twigs,
and finally lined with quantities of dead leaves arranged
in a series of layers. Dippers are much attached to
certain nesting spots, and build year after year in one
situation, if they are left undisturbed especially. I
might also mention that an Australian bird (Origma
rubricata), certainly not very closely related to the

232 BIRDS’ NESTS

Dippers, nests in a very similar manner, placing its
domed nest in a suitable nook on the banks of the
rocky streams and gullies that it frequents.

Very similar nest-makers are the Wrens (Trog-
lodytidz), although their globular homes must be
taken in the sense of an analogy rather than an
affinity, for these birds cannot be regarded as very
close relatives of the Dippers. As already pointed
out, the domed type of nest is not absolutely uni-
versal in this family, but the normal style of architec-
ture is a globular one, and that is all that need
concern us in the present chapter. Beginning with
the most familiar species, we have the pretty globular
nest of the Common Wren (Troglodytes parvulus).
Although this is always constructed on the same
general plan, there is a very large range of variation
in the general shape and the materials employed,
due to local conditions of site and so forth. The
situations for it vary considerably also. Among the
more frequent may be mentioned bushes, brambles,
ivy, overhanging banks, amongst the exposed roots
of trees, and in stumps in hedges. Less usual situa-
tions are amongst thatch, in hay- and wood-stacks, or
the extremity of some long pendent branch of an
evergreen tree. The Wren is another of those species
that takes great pains to conceal its nest by closely
assimilating it with surrounding objects, hence the
great variety of the external materials of its cradle.
According to circumstances, therefore, the outer

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 233

materials may consist of moss, dead fronds of ferns,
dry leaves and grass, and lichens. The lining is not
so variable, and usually consists of green moss, hair,
and feathers. The entrance to this ball-like nest is
generally on the front near the top, less frequently on
the side, and almost invariably it is bound round with
straws.or dry grass stalks, twigs, or even roots, thus
rendering secure and strong that part of the structure
subject to the greatest amount of wear. Some of the
most beautiful nests of the Wren that I have ever seen
were made externally of fern fronds, or of greenest
moss studded with bits of lichen and cob-web. The
nests of some of the exotic members of this family
are equally pretty. That of the Pnoepyga pusilla, a
species found in India and China, has been most fully
described by Messrs Stuart Baker, and La Touche;
and from those naturalists’ accounts I draw the fol-
lowing particulars. This Wren builds its nest amongst
mosses hanging from trees and rocks, masses of
orchids and other parasitic plants, clumps of ferns,
and so forth. Two distinct types of nest are made
by this species. An example of one of these was
placed inside a large tuft of brilliant green moss
growing from the trunk of a big tree in an evergreen
forest. The bird in the first place seemed to have
attached some of the loose lower ends of the hanging
moss fibres to rough projections on the bark of the
tree, forming a sort of loop beside it. Then more and
more of the living growing moss was worked into this

234 BIRDS’ NESTS

loop, until a firm foundation had been made for the
quantities of fine black moss roots which formed
the inner structure and lining. No entrance hole
was required, the birds passing in and out between
the moss clump and the tree trunk. On other occa-
sions a certain amount of added moss is worked into
the growing mass, until a sufficiently large bag with
a side entrance has been made, which is lined with
fibres and fine brown grass stems. An example of
the other type of nest was wedged under a mass of
yellow-flowered orchid, and rested upon a small stump
jutting from the fallen tree trunk, which was almost
concealed by dense masses of ferns, mosses, and
other vegetable parasites. This nest was globular,
made of the brightest and freshest moss, and lined
with the finest roots of the same. The leaves and
flowers of the orchid drooped over and concealed the
entrance, whilst the green moss of which it was made
exactly resembled the other moss growing in clumps
all around it. This ball-like nest was about four inches
high, three inches in diameter, and the entrance hole
about an inch wide. A more open nest is made by
the Indian Elachura haplonota. One of the nests
of this new species (closely allied to the much more
widely dispersed E. punctata) was placed on a heap
of dead leaves, broken twigs, and branches in a hollow
below a fallen tree, and was supported on each side
by a broken branch. It was largely composed of dead
leaves, skeleton leaves, cemented together with coarse

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 235

fern-roots, a few bents, and one or two twigs, the
lining consisting of skeleton leaves alone. Mr Baker,
the discoverer of the species, describes this nest as a
deep cup with the back wall much prolonged, though
not sufficient to form a roof or porch. Lastly, | may
remark that some other species of Wrens form purse-
like nests, with a long passage of woven materials for
an entrance.

The next family with which we are concerned in
the present chapter is that ill-defined and ill-assorted
heterogeneous assemblage vaguely termed Timeliide.
As we have already seen, the nests of birds provision-
ally included in this ornithological refuse heap present
an immense amount of variation. Domed, or globular,
or roofed structures largely prevail, but limits of space
will only permit of a few of them being noticed here.
Some of the most interesting of these nests are made
by the species included in the genus Pomatorhinus.
Some of the Australian members of it make huge
domed nests of twigs with a spout-like entrance, lined
with feathers and placed at the extremity of branches.
Various other species, found in India, make completely
or nearly globular nests. Thus the nest of Pomator-
hinus phayrii is a globular structure formed of bamboo
leaves, more or less mixed with bracken and fern
fronds and grass, the latter material also forming the
lining. Contrary to the usual custom of these Poma-
torhini, which generally build on or near to the ground,
this bird places its nest from four to seven feet above

236 BIRDS’ NESTS

it in dense bushes, clusters of bamboo and so forth.
Then again the nest of Gampsorhynchus rufulus is a
massive and nearly globular structure formed of
bamboo leaves and lined with fern roots, narrow
strips of bark and grass. Again, various species of
Pellorneum make equally massive nests of very
similar materials, some being more neatly put to-
gether than others. In some of these nests the
entrance is near the top, in others near the middle,
or even quite close to the bottom. The majority
of these birds nest on the ground, but exceptionally
a species places its home in clusters of bamboo or in
tangled masses of plants and creepers. Another
species, also an Indian one, the Drymocataphus
tickelli, makes a rather different type of nest, more
in the shape of a deep cup with one side prolonged
and arched over into a sort of hood, placed either on
the ground or low down in bamboo clusters and dense
bushes. The materials consist of bamboo leaves, soft
sun-grass, dead leaves, and fern fronds. As previously
mentioned, some of these Timeline birds display an
exceptional amount of adaptability in forming their
nests, in certain instances no fewer than three types
of nest. In one of these, Stachyrhis assimilis, when it
builds under shelter sufficient to cover the nest com-
pletely, the cradle is cup-shaped (as so often happens
in a great many remotely allied species) ; when in more
open sites it is formed on a semi-domed model; whilst
on other occasions it assumes the completely globular

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 237

model. The materials in each type consist of bamboo
leaves either entire or shredded, and sometimes a
lining of fine grass is added. Then again, Stachy-
rhidopsis rufifrons (another Indian species) builds two
distinct types of nest; one a globular one, the other
shaped like “ an egg placed on its larger end, with the
extremity cut off in a rather slanting direction”
(Stuart Baker). These nests were either placed in
bamboo clumps, or in masses of twigs on the outside
of them, or in very dense bushes, and were made of
shreds of sun-grass, in one case mixed with bits of
bamboo leaves, and lined with fine grass and bamboo
roots. We still find the domed type of nest prevailing
in such genera as Timelia, Mixornis, Drymocataphus,
and Pellorneum.

We have already had occasion to describe various
nests of the Flycatchers (Muscicapidz), the birds pre-
senting considerable diversity in their domestie
arrangements, even so far as they are known. As
previously shown, we have the covered or concealed
type of nest, as well as the open cup-shaped one,
whilst more exceptionally domed or roofed structures
occur. As, however, the nests of a very large number
of the three hundred species or thereabouts of which
the present family is composed are absolutely un-
known, it is impossible in the present state of our
knowledge to give a comprehensive review of their
architecture. Even the very limits or composition
of the family are as yet in an ill-defined condition,

238 BIRDS’ NESTS

and are likely to remain so until a knowledge of the
external characters of many “ Flycatchers” is supple-
mented by a wider range of anatomical facts than
is now at the service of ornithologists. Many of the
tropical species are adepts at concealing their cup-
shaped nests in the crevices of moss-draped trees and
rocks and banks, skilfully assimilating them, in not a
few cases, with surrounding objects. Others build
partially domed nests in holes under banks, the shape
of the cradle conforming to that of the aperture in
which the pretty home is placed, often so filling it
that merely the round entrance is visible. Another,
an Indian species, Anthipes leucops, builds a globular
nest of grass leaves, and a few dead bamboo leaves,
lined with grass stems, placed amongst upright forks
in bushes, or masses of creeping plants, or roots.
Much more is known concerning the nesting
arrangements of the Swallows (Hirundinidz). These
birds build their nests far more frequently in open
and exposed situations, where they are compara-
tively easily detected, although very often they
are difficult of access. We have already made a
brief allusion to some of the species making open
nests (although these are generally in concealed or
covered sites), it now becomes necessary to describe
a selection from the various types of domed or
roofed nests made by others. Beginning with the
best known, we cannot do better than examine the
procreant cradle of our own familiar House Martin

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 239

(Chelidon urbica). The nest of the bird furnishes
another very interesting example of a changed method
of building within historic time. Before the dawn of
human architecture in England this Martin attached
its nests to rocks, and possibly to big trees, but when
masonry appeared the bird gradually took possession
of the sites with which we are all so familiar to-day.
House Martins now nest indiscriminately upon cliffs
and buildings, when on the latter some spot with a
projecting ledge or cornice being selected similar to
the sites chosen on cliffs where a natural prominence
furnishes the all-necessary protection. The nest is
somewhat like a half basin in shape, more conical in
some than in others, the rather wide entrance hole
generally being close to the rim, between it and the
sheltering projection above, and either at the front or
on one side. The shell of the nest is made of little
pellets of mud, built on piece by piece sometimes with
bits of straw intermixed to give it better adhesive
properties. The interior of this mud shell is then
lined with dry grass and feathers. The House Martin
generally begins at the bottom of the cup, working
upwards and outwards towards the sheltering pro-
minence, plastering on each little ball of mud either
whilst clinging outside or standing inside the structure.
These birds are gregarious, and in some places every
available bit of wall or cliff is occupied by a nest. Rows
of these may often be seen under copings or eaves, but
on cliffs they are of course placed less regularly,

240 BIRDS’ NESTS

although I have seen clusters of several nests, each
attached to the one adjoining. House Martins are
also much attached to their breeding places, and
yearly return to their old nests, after their migrational
journeys of thousands of miles and an absence of
quite six months. Far away in India a Martin
(Chelidon cashmeriensis), closely allied to our own,
makes a nest on a very similar plan, attaching it to
cliffs under the little projections. It is made externally
of mud and bits of moss, and lined with grass stems
and feathers. Another Eastern species of Martin
(C. blakistoni), found in Japan, was thought by Mr
Jouy to make its nest largely of saliva when breeding
in the volcanic region of FPuji-Yama, at an altitude
above the limits of forest growth where no mud could
be obtained. Many of these birds that were shot in
this region had their mouths full of fine scoriz dust,
which when mixed with saliva evidently became a
substitute for mud. These Martins were breeding in
considerable numbers on the sides of an inaccessible
cliff or chasm on this mountain. An interesting
instance of the intelligence often displayed by
Swallows in nest-building has been recorded by Mr
F. Lewis (Nature, 1886, p. 265). This relates to the
“ Bungalow ” Swallow (Hirundo javanica), so named
because of the frequency with which it breeds in
houses. A pair of these birds made a nest on the top
of a hanging lamp, taking care to build the domed
cradle over the pulleys by which the lamp was lowered

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 241

for lighting, so that the chains could travel over the
enclosed wheels without damaging the nest. Although
this lamp was in use each night the birds successfully
reared their brood, after which the nest was removed
owing to the inconvenience caused by the feathered
usurpers. Some of the typical Swallows (Hirundo)
differ very remarkably in their nest-model from the
swallow of the British Islands. One of these, the
Striped Swallow (H. stviolata), a resident in Formosa,
makes a retort-shaped nest of mud, attaching it to
walls. The Chinese show this little bird every con-
sideration and encouragement, and never allow the
nests that it makes in their houses to be disturbed or
robbed. In India this species, according to the obser-
vations of Mr Stuart Baker, does not make a retort-
shaped nest, but one more after the model of the
English Swallow, attaching it to cliffs under a little
projection. The retort-shaped type is by no means
an uncommon one in the present family, in widely
separated parts of the world. Thus in Australia we
have the Fairy Martin (H. ariel) attaching its flask-
shaped nests to cliffs. These are made of mud or
clay externally, and lined with soft materials. The
length of the entrance spout appears to be subject to
considerable variation in length, ranging from six to
ten inches. Then in America we have the Rufous-
necked Swallow (H. fulva), building a similar flask-
shaped structure, but the spout is shorter and more
open. Numbers of these nests are often placed as

Q

242 BIRDS’ NESTS

close together as possible on some suitable cliff—a
spot where an overhanging ledge furnishes the
required shelter from above. Another American
species, the Chestnut-bellied Swallow (H. erythrogaster),
makes a nest of mud in the form of an inverted cone,
the side nearest to the rock to which it is affixed being
more or less flat. Incidentally 1 may mention that
various species of Swallows breed in the disused nest
of the Oven-bird, forming a bed for their eggs with dry
grass and feathers, but whether this indicates a change
in the nest-building methods of these annexing species
it is of course impossible to say. We might almost
presume that these birds have relinquished the habit
of forming a mud shell or outer nest when they dis-
covered that these mud “ovens” saved them the
trouble of making one for themselves. A full descrip-
tion of the Oven-bird’s curious nest will shortly be
given (conf. p. 244).

The open type of nests of the Tyrant Birds
(Tyvannid@) has already been described, but we have
now to deal with the various domed nests made by
other species in this family. A description of one or
two of these must suffice. Mr Richmond has recorded
(Proceedings U.S. National Museum, xvi. p. 504) a most
interesting experience of how he found his first nest of
the Tyrant Bird named Todirostrum cinereum, by see-
ing the little owner of it (after a spirited attack upon
an intruding species of Wood-hewer) disappear into
what he had supposed to be an accidental tuft of

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 243

dead grass and leaves. This nest he found to be
a very compact structure with a hidden entrance in
the side just large enough to admit the bird. All the
nests of this species found subsequently by him were
built in exposed situations, and resembled bunches of
drift grass. Another species, breeding in Brazil, and
locally known as the “ Ferreirinho,” or Little Smith
(T. maculatum), builds a similarly domed nest. One
of these has been most carefully described by Dr
Goeldi, to whom we are indebted for the following
particulars. It was built near the extremity of a
short branch of an “abin” tree about twenty-three
feet from the ground, somewhat well concealed in the
central part of the crown, and is described as a bag-
like structure with an entrance hole in the side, the
latter being small and circular, and provided with a
sort of porch or protecting roof, as we have already
seen is a feature in the nests of some Sun-birds. The
principal. material of which the nest is made is the
fibres of palm-tree leaves and bits of straw. Many of
these fibres hang down in a loose and slovenly manner
far below the bulk of the nest, whilst the upper part
of the structure, including the portion connecting it
to the branch, is similarly prolonged into a horn-like
mass. Possibly the very carelessness of its construc-
tion forms one of its best safeguards, as it might
readily be taken for a mere lodgment of rubbish
amongst the clustering leaves in which it has been so
cunningly placed.

244 BIRDS’ NESTS

As already indicated, the Chatterers (Cotingidz)
build several types of nest, concealed, open or cup-
shaped, and as we have now to repeat, domed or
roofed. Here, again, we are confronted with such
a small amount of material that a fairly exhaustive
review of the architecture of these birds is at present
impossible, and with nothing of special interest to
record, we must, with this brief allusion, pass on to
our next family of domed nest-builders. This includes
those gaudily arrayed Wren-shaped ground birds the
Pittas (Pittidz). The Pittas (an Old World group) are
mostly ground builders, as might naturally be inferred
from their eminently terrestrial habits, and construct
globular nests of twigs, roots, fibres, in some cases
cemented with mud, and lined with grass and moss.

We now reach a specially interesting family of
birds, the Wood-hewers (Dendrocolaptide). This
family is entirely confined to the Neotropical region,
and presents, so far as it is known, a singularly large
amount of variation in its architecture. Amongst the
most remarkable nest-builders in this family (indeed
we might say with equal truth throughout the entire
avine kingdom) are the Oven-birds (Funarius). Per-
haps the species whose nest is best known is the
Red Oven-bird (Funarius rufus). Possibly because the
nest is such an elaborate structure, and formed of
material that requires some time to harden, the birds
begin building it months before it is required for its
principal purpose, the rearing of the young. This

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 245

building goes on more or less intermittently from
autumn onwards through the winter, as the weather
may be favourable for the task. The birds, curiously
enough, seem to take little or no pains to conceal
their conspicuous nest, placing it indiscriminately on
the tops of fences, on masses of rock, amongst trellis
work fastened to houses, or even on some exception-
ally large cactus, in bushes, or on broad branches
of trees. Several nests are occasionally made close
together. The nest or “oven” is nearly globular in
shape, strong and massive, and made of clay or mud
mixed with bits of straw, hair, and fibres. The walls
of this mud nest are perhaps an inch in thickness,
and when thoroughly baked by the fierce sub-tropical
sun become almost as hard as a brick. The whole
structure is still further strengthened by peculiarities
of its design, consisting of a central wall or partition
which rises from the bottom of the nest and reaches
nearly to the top of the dome, thus dividing the
interior into two chambers. This party wall curves
inwards from the entrance nearly to the back, thus
leaving a narrow passage into the inner chamber,
where the nest is completed by a bed of soft dry
grass. The “oven” is about twelve inches in
diameter, and often weighs as much as ten pounds.
Notwithstanding the elaborate character of these
nests, the birds are said to make a new one each
season, sometimes doing so on the top of the
previous one. Both sexes appear to join in building

246 BIRDS’ NESTS

these curious nests. The deserted “ovens,” as we
have lately pointed out, are used by a variety of
other birds for nesting purposes.

Some of the other nests made by the Wood-hewers
are little less extraordinary. Not a few of the
most curious are made by certain members of the
genus Synallaxis. One of these, Synallaxis phrygano-
phila, makes a nest of sticks about twelve inches
deep, and from the top to the bottom of this a
tubular passage is constructed, similar to a rain-pipe
along the wall of a house, and then passing outside
slopes upward, and finally terminates several feet
from the actual nest. I ought to add that this
curious passage is made of fine twigs dexterously
interlaced. A Yucatan species, S. erythrothorax,
makes an enormous nest of sticks, and varying in
size from that of a small pumpkin to that of a
barrel. So numerous are these nests in some
localities that upwards of two hundred of them have
been counted on trees standing within a radius of
twenty rods. Sometimes a single tree contains half
a dozen nests; whilst occasionally, as was observed
by Mr Burrows, the nests of several species crowd
each other out of shape, so closely are they made
on the same bush. Another of these species of
Synallaxis weaves a small straight tube out of grass
Open at both ends, the aperture being only large
enough to admit a single finger, the parent bird
having to pass right through this singular nest

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 247

when once she had entered it, owing to the impos-
sibility of turning round. One other species scoops
out a circular hollow in the ground, and over this
builds a dome of finely woven grass. Still another
of these birds, the Synallaxis albescens, builds a
domed nest with a passage leading out of the top,
made of sticks and lined with wool. In building this
curious dwelling, the large cup-shaped nest is made
first, which is then roofed over, and the tubular
passage added.

Synallaxis pudica builds its nest in a bush from
three to five feet from the ground. This resembles
a retort in shape, having a bowl with a neck at the
top slanting downward. It is made of small thorny
sticks closely laced together, the neck or entrance
being built out and downward until it is below the
level of the body of the nest. In some cases, as
was remarked by Mr Richmond, this covered way
is not very well defined, being lost in the mass of
sticks, and so compactly is the whole structure put
together that it is no easy matter to open it bare-
handed.

Some of the marsh frequenting species attach their
spherical or oval-domed nests to reeds. Some of
these are a combination of dry grass and clay, so
cleverly put together as to be impervious to wet,
almost indestructible, and light as baskets. Another
type of nest is found in the genus Phacellodomus.
One species, P. striaticollis, places its nest in a

248 BIRDS’ NESTS

sloping position on a tree or bush often over water,
making it of twigs, and lining it with hair, roots,
and feathers. It resembles a wide-mouthed bottle
in shape, and consists of two separate chambers, an
inner and an outer one. Then in the genus Homorus
we are introduced to another model, the Homorus
lophotis, making a big nest, in shape resembling a
gigantic flask. This is also placed in a horizontal
position amongst the lower spreading branches of
trees. Another member of this genus, Homorus
gutturalis, forms a monstrous domed or roofed nest
of sticks, so big, that if the dome were removed, a
condor (one of the largest of known birds) could
incubate her eggs and rear her young in it. Lastly,
we may mention one example from yet another genus
of these remarkable architects. This is the Pracello-
domus sibilatrix, which builds so huge a nest, at the
extremity of a horizontal branch ten or fifteen feet
from the ground, that its weight when completed
bends the branch down to within a few feet of the
earth.

Our last instances of domed nest-builders are drawn
from the small group of South American Wren-like
birds associated in the family Pteroptochide. But
little appears to have been recorded respecting the
nidification of these somewhat isolated and aberrant
species; but some of them are known to build domed
nests of grass and fibres, others breed in burrows,
whilst some make an open type of nest with sticks.

DOMED OR ROOFED NESTS 249

As we remarked at the beginning of the present
chapter, the domed or roofed type of nest is an
especial feature in the architecture of Passerine birds.
These are mostly small and comparatively weak
and defenceless species, and unquestionably adopt
this style of nest as a safeguard from the exception-
ally numerous enemies that surround them, especially
in tropical countries. To a much smaller extent they
may be formed on this model for the purpose of
shielding their contents either from cold (as in the
case of some of the northern ranging species), or
from the torrential deluges of rain that are such a
feature of tropical latitudes. In a great many cases
it will have been remarked that the protection de-
rived from these bag-like nests is still further
ensured by the peculiarities of the situations that
have been selected for them, such as at the. ex-
tremities of drooping slender branches, often above
water, where naught but winged enemies could reach
them. In like manner we have often seen how cun-
ningly they have been concealed amongst surrounding
vegetation, or made to resemble objects near them.
Another fact worthy of repetition here is the fre-
quency with which a species has occasionally adopted
a domed type of nest when built in an exceptional
position. Lastly, we have to call attention to the
fact that the eggs of these domed or roofed nest-
builders are, in a very large number of cases, white,
or of one tint, or rarely spotted to any great extent,

250 BIRDS’ NESTS

as is the case with birds breeding in open nests;
whilst in a similarly large number of instances these
domed nests are made by species remarkable for the
showy colours of their plumage. How far, however,
this is cause or effect it is impossible in the present
state of our knowledge to suggest.

CHAPTER VII _

PENDULOUS NESTS

251

CHAPTER VII

PENDULOUS NESTS

Erroneous opinions respecting Pendulous Nests—Definition of Pendulous
Nests—Rarity of this type in Avine Architecture—Variation in shape of Nest
in same species—Nests of the Penduline Tits—Of various Flower-peckers—Of
certain Honey-eaters—Of various species of Gerygone—Of the Glossy Star-
lings—Of the Weaver-birds—Of the Indian Weaver-bird—Extraordinary Nest
of this species—Of the Yellow-crowned Weaver—Various shapes of Weaver-
birds’ Nests—Method of building adopted by Weaver-birds—Weaver-birds a
striking feature of Eastern Bird Life—Nests of the Hang-nests~Shape and
dimensions of Nests—Changes in materials used according to locality occupied
by species—Nest of Baltimore Oriole—Reason displayed by Birds in Nest-
building—Most typical Pendulous Nests—Of various Cassiques—Nests of the
Cassiques a feature in tropical American scenery—The Cow Birds—Parasites
—Various facts relating to Pendulous Nests—Enemies to Birds and Eggs—
Resumé of previous chapters and conclusion.

It is somewhat remarkable how the term “ pendulous”
or “ penduline” is applied to such a large number of
nests that have little or no claim, strictly speaking, to
be described as such. Not a few of the nests included
in our previous chapters have quite erroneously been
classed as pendulous by various writers. We may allude
specially to the nests of certain Humming-birds, Sun-
birds and Tyrant-birds to illustrate our remarks, and
here insist that a hanging or suspended nest is by no
means necessarily a “pendulous” one. Nests built
at the extremity of slender and often drooping branches,
or attached to fern fronds and broad ribbon-like leaves,
cannot accurately be described as pendulous. My de-
253

254 BIRDS’ NESTS

finition of a “ pendulous” nest is one that may either
hang loosely by a woven rope of varying length and
not supported from below, or in any other manner;
or by having the upper material of the nest itself
attached in one or more places to the branch which
carries it, the nest, however, swinging completely free.
This type of nest is by no means a common one.
Indeed, it is noteworthy in how very few families
these pendulous nests are found, and I may also add
that they are almost exclusively confined to species
dwelling in tropical countries. To my mind they
represent the most skilful limits to which birds have
developed the nest-building art. Not that they should
be regarded as any more wonderful in their construc-
tion than the various other types of avine nests (for
they are but representatives of the same great utili-
tarian plan), but they are the highest development of
an architecture that has progressed along certain
lines—a type that is possibly a development from,
or even an improvement upon, the one that has for
its examples nests suspended from the extremities
of drooping branches, so many of which have been
described in the previous chapter. Possibly these
pendulous nests appeal more to our admiration than
those of any other birds when we bear in mind how
skilful must the little architect be that can construct
or weave, first a swinging rope or cord, and then a
more or less elaborate domed cradle at the extremity
of it, absolutely in mid-air, often over water, and

PENDULOUS NESTS 255

swayed to and fro by every breeze! Lastly, I] may
state that the considerable amount of variation in the
shape of these pendulous nests belonging to the same
species is a feature of exceptional interest. We will
now proceed to a description of some of these pendulous
nests.

Perhaps it may be as well to deal with those that
are least pendulous first, those that may be described
as a sort of compromise between nests hanging from
the extremities of twigs and with which they are inter-
woven, and those that are suspended in the more
typical pensile manner. Examples of these nests are
furnished by the Penduline Tits (4githalus), included
in the family Paridz. One of these birds is found in
various parts of Southern Europe, the Penduline Tit-
mouse (4igithalus pendulinus), probably the only in-
stance of a typical pendulous nest-builder throughout
the Palearctic region, the other members of the genus
being found in warmer localities. A favourite situation
for the nest of this species is the extremity of some
slender drooping branch, at varying heights from the
earth, and not unfrequently over water. The nest is
hung from the branch with woven camels’ or other
hair. In shape it is more or less globular, something
like that of the Long-tailed Tit, but the entrance con-
sists of a kind of tube extending a little way beyond
the side. The materials consist of cotton down and
hair very closely felted together. Some of the nests
of this bird that I have examined are decidedly pear-

256 BIRDS’ NESTS

shaped, the stalk forming the attachment to the
supporting branch. Another species, the Crowned
Tit (4githalus coronatus), makes a somewhat boot-
shaped structure of similar materials, the entrance
hole being in the “ankle” portion, and the whole
suspended from the “heel.” In some parts of Asia
Minor nests of the typical Penduline Tit have been
found made entirely from the wool and hair of sheep
and camels.

Instances of this particular type of pendulous nest
are also furnished by some of the Flower-peckers
(Diczidz). Some of the nests of these birds have
already been described in the previous chapter, but
a thoroughly pendulous one must find a place here.
This is the beautiful cradle of the Australian Flower-
pecker (Diceum hirundinaceum). It is said generally
to be built amongst the branches at the top of a tree,
hung or suspended from a more or less horizontal
twig, either of the tree itself or some parasite plant.
It is a bag or purse-shaped globular structure with a
side entrance near the top, the upper portion of the
nest being woven round the supporting branch. The
material is almost entirely composed of the white
cotton-like down of certain seeds. Another of these
strictly pendulous nests is made by the Thick-billed
Flower-pecker (Piprisoma agile). This bird suspends
its tiny nest from some twig, the latter passing
through the upper portion of it like a beam or rafter.
This, again, is mostly made of down and spiders’

PENDULOUS NESTS 257

webs mixed with a few fibres, the latter lending the
whole structure a brown appearance. It is, of course,
purse-shaped; and Mr Jesse records that another of
its peculiarities is “that it can be rolled up and un-
rolled again without losing its shape.” Perhaps the
nests of no other family form such a connecting link
between hanging domed nests and those of a strictly
pendulous character, some of them being exception-
ally puzzling as to which division they most correctly
belong. Some nests of the Honey-eaters (Meliphagidz)
rank next in this peculiarity, the open cradle, for in-
stance, of the Lanceolate Honey-eater (Plectorhynchus
lanceolatus) being attached at each extremity of the
rim to the supporting twig ; vegetable down and grass
are the principal materials of this hammock - like
abode.

Other examples of pendulous nests are furnished
by the Goldcrest-like little birds of the genus Gery-
gone, associated by some systematists with the Fly-
catchers, by others with the Warblers. They are
peculiar to the Australian region. From particulars
published by Mr D. Le Souéf, I have drawn the
following information relating to the Masked Gerygone
(G. personata). This bird lives in the dense scrub, and
suspends its dome-shaped nest from the extremity of
a thin branch or a palm leaf. It has a porch at the
entrance, more prominent in some nests than in
others. It is composed of fine fibres of grass; and
to the tapering beard-like lower portion the dried

R

258 BIRDS’ NESTS

excreta of wood-loving caterpillars are attached,
whilst small portions of the same material are often
studded over the exterior of the nest itself, as well
as cob-webs; the lining is formed of the fine brown-
coloured down off the reeds of scrub plants, together
with a good deal of cob-web. The nest itself, exclusive
of the “beard” or pendent, is about five inches in
length, the tapering portion below about three inches.
A very interesting circumstance was observed by the
above named gentleman in connection with the nest
of this bird. That was, that it always seemed to build
its nest in close proximity to a wasps’ nest, from within
a few inches to four feet away—a peculiarity already
remarked of some other birds (conf. p. 224). More
information relating to the architecture of another of
these birds has been published by Mr Alfred North.
This relates to the Great-billed Gerygone (G. mag-
nivostris). This species generally builds its nest in
low trees overhanging a river or a creek, but one nest
was discovered in a shaddock tree in a garden. It
is a long pendent structure, varying from sixteen to
twenty-four inches in length, usually attached to the
drooping end of a nearly leafiess twig. The end of
this twig is first covered with an irregular layer of
material between two and three inches in diameter,
and from nine to twelve inches in length, before the
actual nest is commenced. This is domed with a
projecting porch over the entrance, whilst the lower
portion of the nest terminates in a straggling beard

PENDULOUS NESTS 259

about five inches in length. The nest is made of
shreds of bark, cocoanut fibre, dry grass and weeds,
skeletons of leaves, and the silk-like coverings of
spiders’ nests—the whole matted together and more
resembling a hanging mass of débris left by the floods
than a nest. The lining consists of feathers. The
dome of the nest is about seven inches in length and
five inches in breadth. It may be of interest to state
that these birds are very frequently selected to play the
part of foster parents to various species of Cuckoos.
Mention might here also be made of the apparently
pendulous nest of the Glossy Starling (Calornis
metallica). This species is said to be very common
in the north-east coast districts of Australia, building
their nests on the tallest trees available in the scrub,
forest country, or mangroves. These birds very
closely resemble our own Starling in their habits,
living in flocks and breeding in societies. Mr D. Le
Souéf remarks that when a large colony are nesting
on one tree the noise they make is considerable, the
birds looking like a swarm of bees circling round
the top. The same nest trees are used year after
year; and sometimes one tree will contain just upon
three hundred nests. These nests are suspended from
the thin branches which sometimes break with their
weight. These are described as bulky hanging struc-
tures, nearly circular, measuring about seven inches
in diameter, the nest cavity about four and a half
inches. They are chiefly composed of dark-coloured

260 BIRDS’ NESTS

curly vine tendrils, lined with finer light-coloured
fibres from the palm trees.

We now arrive at the most typical of these pen-
dulous nests, those to be considered first being made
by various species of Weaver-birds (Ploceidz). The
nests of some of these birds have already been
described—globular or domed structures, but non-
pendulous—the nests of the hanging type are even
still more remarkable. These nests, although made
on avery uniform plan, present not a little diversity
in shape and general appearance. A very typical
example of these pendulous nests is made by the
Indian Weaver-bird (Ploceus baya). After having
selected a suitable branch (usually of a tar tree) the
bird begins to weave from it a rope or string of
tendrils and fibres, from the end of which is ulti-
mately formed the globular nest chamber, lined with
grass, which is succeeded by an open woven tube,
several inches in length, serving for the entrance.
A most extraordinary nest of this species has been
recorded by Mr W. Jesse (Ibis, 1897, p. 558). This
nest, better described as 2 collection of nests, is made
up of no fewer than seven distinct nest chambers, one
placed below the other. These nests appear to have
been added to the structure year by year, as the
lowest was composed of new grass, the material of
the others getting older and older, the top one
apparently being so timeworn that it was a wonder
it had not given way under the unusual strain.

NEST OF A WEAVER BIRD.

PENDULOUS NESTS 261

Three out of the seven chambers were found to be
in actual use, each containing eggs. Another species,
the Yellow-crowned Weaver (P. spfilonotus), inhabiting
Africa, builds a nearly globular nest, attached by two
woven ropes to the supporting branch, with an
entrance either on the side or near the bottom. To
this nest no special entrance tube appears ever to
be attached. Some other species belonging to the
genus Hyphantornis exhibit a considerable amount
of ingenuity in the construction of their nests. These
are retort-shaped, and are suspended with the short
neck downwards, and from a casual examination
might be considered most unsafe receptacles for
eggs and young birds. But closer inspection will
reveal the curious fact that across the entrance to
the bulb-like chamber a safety wall or guard has
been woven, several inches in height, thus insuring
absolute safety for the contents. Other nests made
on the same inverted retort plan or model are made
by the Pensile Weavers peculiar to Madagascar.
These nests are about twelve inches in length, the
entrance tube being about four inches in diameter.
All the Weaver-birds work at their nests in a very
similar manner. Many of the species are gregarious,
or, at least, social, during the breeding season, and
numbers of nests may frequently be seen swinging
in company from the same trees, and even occasion-
ally one nest will be actually suspended from another.
Weaver-birds are one of the most striking features in

262 BIRDS’ NESTS

the bird-life of the East, and in some countries (as,
for instance, in Burma) there are few thatched houses,
as Mr Oates informs us, without a number of their
inverted flask-like and spouted nests suspended from
the eaves, the birds caring little for the near approach
of the human owners. I may also state that the
chief materials generally employed by these wonder-
ful little birds are fibres, strips of various leaves, and
a variety of narrow stiff and elastic grasses.

Our last examples of these pendulous nests are
furnished by a family of birds not inappropriately
named Hang-nests (Icteridz), confined to America,
and most abundant in the tropical portions of that
vast region. These birds are the makers of the
most pronounced type of pendulous nest, some of
the structures they weave being of a most extra-
ordinary description. Some of these wonderful avine
cradles measure nearly six feet in length, the greater
part of this, of course, being occupied by the support-
ing woven cord or tube. They vary considerably in
shape, some being nearly globular, others of almost
every description of bottle or flask shape. The
materials consist of wiry grasses, dry roots, hairs
and fibres, lichens and slender mosses. Many species
breeding in the more populated districts have readily
availed themselves of such articles as twine and
worsted. This variation of material in some cases
has a very perceptible effect upon the appearance
of the nests of the same species. Apropos of this

PENDULOUS NESTS 263

fact, Dr Goeldi has made the following observations,
which I herewith quote from the [bis (1897, pp. 364,
365):—“Jdust as the material used by Cassicus
persicus for its nest in Bahia (and southwards) is
different from that used by the same bird in Para,
the material employed by Ostinops decumanus in
these two countries respectively is also different. 1
have stated that in Southern Brazil Ostinops uses
exclusively the Barba da velho (Tillandsia usneoides),
and that these southern nests are of a greyish colour.
On the Amazon the material employed by this bird
is composed of—(1) a black hairy substance, very
like horsehair or delicate and elongated roots [which
botanical researches in the Para Museum prove to
be a most interesting lichen, but of which it is not
yet possible to ascertain the exact systematic name];
(2) of the dry and tender roots of certain orchids of
a yellowish colour. As the proportions of both sub-
stances is almost as two to one, and the black root-
like lichen is largely predominant, the general aspect
of these northern nest-bags is of a blackish colour,
contrasting in a striking manner with the greyish
Tillandsia-structures of Southern Brazil.” We thus
see how a species may change its nest material with
the change of vegetation in different latitudes—a
phenomenon of which vast numbers of other in-
stances might have been given, and of which not a
few have already been indicated in the present
volume. But to return to the nests of these Icterine

264 BIRDS’ NESTS

birds. Certain of.the species in the present family
construct nests of a somewhat intermediate type,
like those of the Penduline Tits and the Honey-eaters.
Of these mention may be made of the following.
The Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula), a common
summer migrant to many parts of the United States,
makes a deep bag or pocket-like nest, which is hung
pendulously to the extremity of a suitable branch,
the rim of the structure generally being caught or
interwoven in one or two places to the supporting
twigs. The bird commences operations, according to
that accurate observer, Wilson, by fastening strong
strips of hemp or flax fibre round the two forks of a
twig sufficiently wide apart for the purpose, and with
these and other materials, such as tow and wool, it
weaves it into a kind of strong cloth-like substance,
which is fastened into a pocket-like nest, the latter
being lined with a variety of soft material, and finally
finished with a layer of horse-hair. Considerable
variation in the neatness and fabrication of the nests
of these birds has often been remarked, the least
elaborate and skilfully made-cradles most probably
being the work of young and inexperienced individuals.
This undoubted fact in the nest-building of other
‘species has already been noticed in the opening
chapter (conf. p. 15). Other species of Orioles
belonging to the same genus or closely allied genera
make very similar structures. Perhaps the nests of
no other birds exhibit so much evidence of construc-

PENDULOUS NESTS 265

tive adaptability as do those of the American Orioles.
A long and observant familiarity with these nests
prompted the illustrious Wilson to proclaim that they
“exhibit not only art in the construction, but judg-
ment in adapting their fabrications so judiciously to
their particular situations. If the actions of birds
proceeded, as some would have us believe, from the
mere impulses of that thing called instinct, individuals
of the same species would uniformly build their nests
in the same manner, wherever they might happen to
fix it; but it is evident from those just mentioned,
and from a thousand such circumstances, that they
reason, & priori, from cause to consequence, persist-
ently managing with a constant eye to future neces-
sity and convenience.” The belief in instinct, how-
ever, like many another popular superstition and
prejudice, dies hard, and is still very generally in-
voked as an explanation of many of the wonders
associated with avine architecture.

The most typical pendulous nest-builders are the
Cassiques (Cassicus, etc.). These birds are inhabitants
of tropical America, where they form a very pro-
minent and characteristic feature in the ornithology
of that region. Their nests are very curious and
interesting structures, and may best be described as
elongated bags or pockets suspended by woven cords
of various lengths and thicknesses. These wonderful
hanging nests—a type of architecture in which the
art of suspension reaches its climax—are one of the

266 BIRDS’ NESTS

most characteristic features of tropical river scenery
in Amazonia and Guiana, where single trees are often
draped, with numbers of them hanging from the
extremities of the highest branches in situations
_ Practically inaccessible to all but winged enemies.
These birds are in many cases not only gregarious,
but remarkably familiar, showing little fear of man
and often breeding in very populous places (such as by
the side of a much frequented road), like the Rook and
some other species in our own islands. One of the
most interesting of these nests is made by a Brazilian
Cassique (Ostinops decumanus). Some of these are
suspended by an exceptionally long woven cord, this
and the bag of the nest itself measuring quite six
feet in length! The nests of other species, such as
that of Cassicus persicus, are much shorter and more
cylindrical, although made on precisely the same
model, a deep bag with a comparatively small horse-
shoe shaped entrance at the top. The materials of
these pendulous nests vary considerably according to
the locality, as we have just seen, but in every case
long dry fibres and thread-like roots are the principal.
These are woven together with great skill into fabrics
of exceptional strength, the females alone being the
architects apparently in every species. The observa-
tions of Dr Goeldi (whose biological observations in
Amazonia are of the greatest interest and value, and
which I hope may receive a better reception next
time than they got from certain stupid and ignorant

PENDULOUS NESTS 267

reviewers when placed before an English public in his
book entitled Aves de Brazil) confirm the widely pre-
vailing and popular belief in Brazil and Guiana that
these Cassiques choose such trees for their colonies
which are also occupied by wasps and their nests.
The natives of these regions say that the Cassiques
when threatened by an invading carnivorous animal
or even by man fly intentionally against the wasp’s
nest in order to direct the irritation of these insect
allies against the intruder, and literally to “bring a
hornets’ nest about his ears,” as the old saying has it!
This habit, however, is by no means confined to the
Cassiques, and I have had occasion to allude to it
several times elsewhere in the present volume. I may
also mention in connection with these Cassiques that
at least one of the Cow-birds (Cassidrix oryzivora) is
parasitic on them, a fact which was first made known
by Dr Goeldi, who has most conclusively shown that
its eggs are habitually laid in the hanging bag-like
nest of Ostinops decumanus.

As we have seen in the preceding pages, a vast
number of birds are at great pains to conceal their
nests from view, not only by hiding them in a great
variety of situations, but by assimilating them with
surrounding objects both in colour and in form. But
with the builders of the most typical pendulous nests
no attempt is ever made to conceal them. They
hang at the extremity of branches in full view of all,
and it would seem that in many cases the birds sought

268 BIRDS’ NESTS

to encourage discovery rather than to evade it. Some
of the birds, however, building the more intermediate
types of pendulous nest, take pains to hide their nests
amongst the leaves at the extremities of drooping
branches; others make their homes resemble drift or
masses of rubbish lodged in the trees. The safety of
the truly pendulous nest, however, does not depend
in any way upon its concealment, that safety is
derived from the peculiarities of the position in
which it is placed, at the extremities of slender
branches.

As we have already seen, this situation is selected
for the nest by a great number of species breeding in
the warmest regions of the earth. These regions
abound in the most deadly enemies to birds and eggs,
and it is only reasonable to expect that the’ most
elaborate methods are there pursued in order to
defeat them. Some of the most dreaded of these
enemies are monkeys, lizards and snakes, but even
these agile creatures are absolutely baffled in their
attempts to reach nests suspended so airily, brooding
parent and precious eggs swinging in safety far from
the ground or over deep waters, which such creatures
specially avoid.

Our review of avine architecture is now brought to
aclose. All things considered, it may be regarded as
reasonably complete. It is, of course, impossible to
deal with the nidification of some twelve thousand
species of birds, even if the nests or methods of

PENDULOUS NESTS 269

reproduction were all known. There are, however, a
great many birds whose nests still remain absolutely
unknown, or, at least, have never been described by
any competent naturalist. The bulk of these be-
long to species peculiar to the South American
continent, a region exceptionally rich in bird life, and
as equally poor in working naturalists. Then, again,
it would be quite unnecessary to describe more than
one nest in many groups, that of one being almost an
exact replica of another. Broadly speaking, every
special type of architecture has been described, and
each has been fairly well, in some cases exceptionally
well, illustrated by numbers of examples; whilst
every opportunity has been taken to touch lightly
upon the philosophic side of the subject. More than
this could not be attempted in a little work, which,
besides being a pioneer, standing practically alone at
the threshold of an almost neglected science, makes
no more ambitious pretension than to introduce the
reader to the very fascinating study of Birds’ Nests.
In our wide review of avine reproduction, we com-
menced with the consideration of those birds that
either make no provision for their eggs or young, the
absolutely nestless that seek the bare earth for a
cradle, or those that annex the deserted cast-off
home of some more industrious, shall I say, more
provident species? Or yet again the parasites, the
birds that shirk every parental duty and leave their
egg to be hatched and their young fostered by another

270 BIRDS’ NESTS

and a stranger species. From these we have passed
to those birds that make the crudest nest forms, and
through them have reached such species that hide
their homes away in concealed or covered sites. Our
next division has included the builders of the open
type of nest, a type that is not only extremely com-
mon, but adopted by the members of almost every
great group in the avine kingdom. Passing on we
reach the more complicated type of a domed or roofed
nest, in which we may fairly assume that the architec-
tural skill of birds has attained to a very high level;
and that, in my own opinion, reaches its absolute
climax in the builders of pendulous nests which have
formed the subject of our closing chapter.

I may conclude the present volume by quoting
some very beautiful lines on a Peacock’s feather,
the sentiments of which as aptly apply to the Nests
of Birds :—

In Nature’s workshop but a shaving,
Of her poem but a word,

But a tint brushed from her palette,
This feather of a bird !

Yet set it in the sun glance,
Display it in the shine,

Take graver’s lense, explore it,
Note filament and line,

Mark amethyst to sapphire,
And sapphire to gold,

And gold to emerald changing
The archetype unfold !

Tone, tint, thread, tissue, texture,
Through every atom scan,

BIRDS’ NESTS 271

Conforming still, developing,
Obedient to plan.

This but to form a pattern
On the garment of a bird !

What then must be the poem,
This but its lightest word !

Sit before it ; ponder o’er it,
*Twill thy mind advantage more

Than a treatise, than a sermon,
Than a library of lore.

THE END.

INDEX

A

AssorT, Dr, 222

Aczena affinis, ror
Accentor, 110

Accentors, 110

Accentor, Hedge, 26
Accipitrinze, 160
Acredula, 121, 186, 225
Acredula rosea, 226
Acrocephalus, 191
Acrocephalus arundinaceus, 191
Aédon, 192

Egithalus, 186, 255
€githalus coronatus, 256
42githalus pendulinus, 255
“Ethopyga, 225
Ethopyga bella, 223
Ethopyga dabryi, 223
£thopyga ignicauda, 223
“£thopyga longirostros, 185
£tbopyga magnifica, 223
Aix, 124

Alaudidze, 220
Albatrosses, 141
Albatross, Great, 141
Albatross, Sooty, 142
Alcidze, 97, 108
Alcedinidze, 93

Alcedo ispida, 93

Alcurus striatus, 196
Allen, 5

Allen’s Humming-bird, 167
Ampelidze, 187, 228
Ampelis garrulus, 187
Anatidze,.124

Anis, 69

Annexers, 46

Anous stolidus, 79
Anseres, 82

x

Anser cinereus, 138

Anseriformes, 81, 138, 152

Anserinz, 82

Anthipes leucops, 238

Anthodizeta collaris, 224

Anthus obscurus, 113

Anthus pratensis, 112

Anthus rufulus, 183

Aptenodytes tzeniata, 76

Aquila, 159

Arachnothera, 194, 221

Aramid, 154

Ardea cinerea, 144

Ardea garzetta, 144

Ardea purpurea, 143

Aritana, 178

Arremon aurantiirostris, 218

Arses candidor, 200

Athene glaux, 108

Athene noctua, 108

Auks, 45. See Guillemot and
Razor-bill

Auk, Little, 108

Aves de Brazil, by Dr Goeldi, 26%

Avocet, 74

Azorella selago, ror, 107, 142

B

BADGER, 96

Baker, S., 197, 227, 233, 235 237,
241 -

Baldamus, Dr, 57, 69

Barba da velho, 263

Barbet, 119

Basilinna xantusi, 164

Battye, 139

Bee-eater, Common, 94, 95

Bee-eaters, 94, 131

273

274

INDEX

Belenogaster rufipennis, 217

Bendire, Major, 58, 227

— Captain, 96

Benson, Lieutenant, 227

Birds, their taste for the beauti-
ful, 7; their intelligence as
compared with their instinct,
pp. 9 to 18, 50; their other
faculties, 19; their adapta-
bility, 80; their power of
mimicry, 204

Birds, Annexers, 46

Birds, British Museum Calalogue
of, 126

Bird, Doctor, 205

Birds, Frigate, 148

Birds, Game, 72

Bird, Humming, 7, 25, 161, 162,
167, 168

Birds, Mound, 126, 132

Bird, ‘Oil, 103, 104

Birds of Paradise, 174, 21 5

Birds, Parasite, 52

Birds of Prey, 47

Bird, Tailor, 23

Birds, Tropic, 43, 148

Birds, Tyrant, 71

Birds, Web-footed, 209

Birds, Wren-like, 203

Bitterns, 144, 145

Bittern, American, 145

Bittern, Little, 145

Blackbird, 16, 46, 55, 188, 195

Blackcap, 26, 190

Black Woodpecker, 49

Boletus, 166

Botaurus lentiginosus, 145

Botaurus minutus, 145

Bower-Birds, 7, 176

Bower-bird, Great, 176

British avifauna, 225

British Birds, a History of, by C.
Dixon, 189

Broad-bills, 213

Bucerotidee, 117

Bucorvus abyssinicus, 118

Buffel-headed Duck, 82

Bulbuls, 196, 198

Bulbul, Blyth’s, 197

Bulbul, Finch-billed, 197

Bulbul, Olive, 198

Bulbul, Striated Green, 196

Bullfinch, 62, 180, 182

Bulweria columbina, 108

Bunting, 29, 46, 125, 180, 182

Bunting, House, 112

Bunting, Snow, 32, 113, 114

Burchell’s Lark-heeled Cuckoo,
212

Burrowing Owl, 95, 97

Burrows, 246

Bush-Tit, 227

Bustards, 73

Bustard-quail, Indian, 73

Bustard-quail, Little, 73

Buteo brachyurus, 49

Buteoninz, 159

Buzzards, 48, 67, 159

Buzzard, Honey, 48

Cc

CAEREBIDA, 178, 219
Calornis metallica, 259
Calypte costze, 164
Campephagidz, 198, 205
Cape Wagtail, 32
Capitonidz, 119
Caprimulgi, 68
Carpodacus, 182
Carythocichla striata, 196
Cassicus, 265,
Cassicus persicus, 263, 266
Cassidrix oryzivora, 267
Cassiques, 265, 267
Cassique, Brazilian, 266
Cassowaries, 42, 65
Cat-bird, 192
Catharista atrata (= American
Black Vulture), 43
Catheturus cathami, 128
Centropus, 69, 212
Centropus burchelli, 212
Centropus nigrorufus, 212
Centropus rufipennis, 213
Centropus toulou, 69
Cephallepis delalandi, 165
Certhiidz, 184
Chaffinch, 6, 14, 16, 18, 24, 30, 64,
180, 181, I91, 205
Chaffinch, Common, 180

INDEX 275

Charadriidee, 74
Charadriiformes, 43, 73
Charito netta, 124

Chat, 109, 110, 132, 188
Chatterers, 202, 244
Chelidon blakistoni, 240
Chelidon cashmeriensis, 240
Chelidon urbica, 239
Chiffchaff, 63, 64, 229
Chlamydodera nuchalis, 176
Chleophaga melanoptera, 109
Chough, 62, 64, 102, 133
Christy, Dr, 71, 228
Chthonicola, 230

Ciconia alba, 146

Ciconia nigra, 147
Ciconiidze, 146

Cinclidze, 192, 230

Cinclus aquaticus, 231
Cinnyris aldabrensis, 222
Cinnyris chalybzeus, 224
Cinnyris gutturalis, 224
Cinnyris habessinicus, 222
Cinnyris jugularis, 222
Circus zeruginosus, 160
Circus cineraceus, 161

Circus cyaneus, 160
Cisticola, 194, 229

Cisticola cursitans, 230
Cisticola subruficapilla, 230
Cisticola terrestris, 230
Clangula, 124
Coccothraustes, 182
Coccyzus americanus, 68
Coccyzus erythrophthalmus, 68
Coccyzus glandarius, 54
Cock of the Rock, 103
Cockatoo, Australian, 119
Coffin-Bird, 32
Colies, 169
Coliidze, 169
Collocalia, 104
Collocalia esculenta, 104
Columba livia, ro2
Columbiformes, 69
Colymbidz, 75
Cometes sparganurus, 166
Conurus, 95

Coots, 27, 55, 154, 157
Coot, Giant, 155
Coracias caudatus, 120

Coracias garrulus, 95

Coracidze, 120

Coraciiformes, 68, 161, 211

Cormorants, 13, 148, 150, ISI,
161

Corvidee, 171, 214

Corvus corax, 171

Corvus fuigelegus, 171

Corvus monedula, 102

Cotingidze, 202, 244

Coua, 69

Coucal, 69

Coues, Dr, 96

Courser, 43, 74

Cow-bird, 54, 58, 267

Crake, Corn, 140, 156

Crakes, 154

Cranes, 75, 153, 154

Crane, Common, 153

Crane, Demoiselle, 153

Craspedophora, 175

Craspedophora alberti, 175

Crawston’s ‘' Ostrich Farming in
California,” 65

Creepers, 184

Crex pratensis, 156

Crossbills, 180, 181

Crotophaga, 69

Crow, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 62, 63,
122, 123, 171, 173, 174, 214,
226 -

Crow Pheasant, Indian, 213

Crypturi, 66

Cuckoo, 52, 57, 68, 212, 259

Cuckoo, Black-billed, 68

Cuckoo, Black-breast Lark-heeled,
212

Cuckoo, Common, 54

Cuckoo, Great Spotted, 54

Cuckoo, Lark-heeled, 69, 212

Cuckoo, North American, 69

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed, 68

Cuculiformes, 68, 212

Cuculus canorus, 54

Curassows, 72, 73, 139

Curlews, 74 :

Curlew, Stone, 44, 73

Cygninze, 82

Cyornis, 123

Cypselidze, 211

Cypselus Melba, 106

276

INDEX

D

DACELO, 93

Daption capense, 77

Darter, 148, 151

Darling, 212

Darwin, Charles, 7

Dasyornis, 230

Davidson, J., 123, 127

De Laland's Plover-crest, 165

De Ia Touche, 227, 233

Dendreeca capitalis, 184, 220

Dendrochelidon, 168

Dendrocitta, 172

Dendrocolaptidz, 92, 203, 244

Descent of Man, Darwin's, 7

Diczeidee, 225, 256

Diceeipz, 185

Diczeum cinereigulare, 225

Diczeum cruentatum, 225

Diczeum hirundinaceum, 256

Diczeum minimum, 186

Dicruride, 176

Diomedea chionoptera, 141

Dipper, 25, 192, 230

Dipper, British, 231

Diver, 75

Dixon, Charles, Story of Birds,
5, 28, 169

Dotterel, 74

Dove-cote Pigeon, 30

Dove, Ring, 24, 47, 48, 49, 50, 64

Dove, Rock, 102

Dromadidz, 75

Drongos, 176, 215

Drymocataphus tickelli, 236

Ducks, 22, 27, 30, 33, 82, 83, 84,

12.

Duck, Buffel-headed, 82, 124
Duck, Eider 32, 55, 83
Duck, Golden-eyed, 82, 124
Duck, Mandarin, 124

Duck, Tufted, 55

Duck, Wood, 124

Dulus dominicus, 228

E

EAGLE, 13, 67, 158
Eagle, American Bald, 159

Eagle, American Harpy, 159
Eagle, Sea, 159
Eagle, Pallas’ Sea, 159
Eagle, Short-toed, 48
Egrets, 144
Egret, Little, 144
Eider, 32, 55, 83
Elachura haplonota, 234
Elachura punctata, 234
Emberiza, 125
Emberiza sahare, 112
Embernagra striaticeps, Central
American, 220
Emerson, Otto, 167
Emus, 42, 65 |
Endyptes chrysocome, 77
Erithacus luscinia, 125
Erithacus rubecula, 125
Estrilda angolensis, 216
Eulipoa wallacii, 127
Euplectes, 218
Euryleemi, 213

F

FALCON, 27, 48, 66

Falcon, Iceland Jer, 48

Falcon, Jer, 66

Falcon, Peregrine, 66

Falcon, Red-legged, 48

Falconiformes, 157

Fantails, 229, 230

Fantail, Grey-backed, 230

Fantail, Ground, 230

Feilden, Colonel, 205

Ferreirinho, 243

Fiery Topaz, 166

Finches, 26, 179, 219. See Gold-
finch, Chaffinch, Bullfinch, &c.

Finches, Weaver, 216

Finfoots, 154, 156

Flamingoes, 81, 152

Flower-peckers, 185, 225, 256

Flower-pecker, Australian, 256

Flower-pecker, Thick-billed, 256

Flycatchers, 122, 132, 199, 237, 257

Flycatchers, Broad-billed, 201

Flycatchers, Fan-tailed, 201

Flycatcher, Frill-necked, 200

INDEX

277

Flycatcher, Pied, 122, 134
Flycatcher, Red- breasted, 199
Flycatcher, Spotted, 30, 31, 134,

199
Flycatcher, Yellow-breasted, 200
Formicariidz, 203
Foudia, 218
Fowl, Spur, 73
Fratercula arctica, 97
Fratercula corniculata, 108
Fregatid, 151
Frigate Birds, 148, 151
Frilled Coquette, 163
Fringilla czelebs, 180
Fringilla carduelis, 181
Fringillide, 179
Frogmoutbs, 68
Fulica gigantea, 155
Fulica leucoptera, 155
Fulmar Petrel, 22, 43, 78
Funarius, 244
Funarius rufus, 244

G

GALBULID, 94

Galliformes, 72, 130, 138, 140

Gallinules, 154

Gallinula chloropus, 156

Galloperdix, 73

Game- Birds, 72

Gampsorhynchus rufulus, 236

Gannets, 148, 150

Garrulax, 194

Garrulus glandarius, 173

Garrulax gularis, 195

Gecinus viridis, 115

Geese, 82, 84, 109

Geococcyx, 69

Geophaps, 70

Geronticus hagedash, 146

Gerygone, 257

Gerygone, Great-billed, 258

Gerygone magnirostris, 258

Gerygone, Masked, 257

Gerygone personata, 257

Goatsuckers, 45, 68

Godwit, 74

Goeldi, Dr, 92, 178, 243, 263, 266,
267

Goldcrests, 186, 227
Goldcrest, British, 186
Goldfinch, 16, 180, 181
Golden eyes, 82, 124
Goosanders, 124

Goose, Grey-lag, 138
Gorse, 167 |

Gould, 6

Gould’s Manucode, 174
Grackles, 178

Grackle, Purple, 51
Grallina australis, 172
Grant (G. L.), 12

Grebes, 27

Grebe, Little, 33
Greenlets, 187

Greenlet, Yellow-throated, 188
Grosbeaks, 180, 182
Grouse, Sand, 71
Gruiformes, 75, 153

Grus cinerea, 153

Grus virgo, 153

Grypus nzevius, 166
Guacharo, 103, 104
Guans, 72, 139

Guide, Honey, 119
Guillemot, 45

Gull, 26, 43, 44, 55, 78, 79
Gull, Black-headed, 80
Gull, Bonaparte’s, 80, 140
Gull, Glaucous, 79

Gull, Herring, 74, 79
Gymnomystax melanicterus, 178

-Gypaetus barbatus, 158

Gyps fulvus, 157

H

HALIAETUS, 159

Haliaétus leucocephalus, 159

Haliaétus leucoryphus, 159

Haliastur indus, 159

Hall, R., 100, 107, 141

Halobzena ceerulea, ror

Hammer-head, 147, 210

Hangnests, American,
262

Hanthixus flavescens, 197

Harriers, 160

Harrier, Hen, 160, 161

14, 215,

278

INDEX

Harrier, Marsh, 160

Harrier, Montagus, 161

Hawfinches, 180, 182

Hawk, 49, 67, 160

Hawk, Cooper's, 49

Hawk, Short-tailed, 49

Hawk, Sparrow, 27, 47

Hedge Accentor, 26

Heliornithidz, 156

Hermits, 165

Hermit, Pygmy, 165

Heron, 13, 27, 29, 49, 143, 145, 210

Heron, Cattle, 144

Heron, Common, 144

Heron, Night, 144

Heron, Purple, 143

Heron, Squacco, 144

Herring-Gull, 74

Hill Stars, 166

Hill Tits, 227

Hirundinidz, 201, 238

Hirundo, 241

Hirundo ariel, 241

Hirundo erythrogaster, 242

Hirundo fulva, 241

Hirundo hyperythra, 106

Hirundo javanica, 240

Hirundo rustica, 107

Hirundo smithi, 112

Hirundo striolata, 241

Hoatzin, og 7, 146

Hobby, 4:

Hobby, Granueleveed. 48

Homes without Hands, by J. G.
Woods, 4, 30

Homorus, 248

Homorus gutturalis, 248

Homorus lophotis, 248

Honey-eaters, 184, 257, 264

Honey-eater, Banded, 184

Honey-eater, Graceful, 185

Honey-eater, Lanceolate, 257

Honey-eater, Yellow-spotted, 185

Honey Guide, 119

Hoopoe, 32, 119, 120

Hornbills, 117, 118, 120, 131

Hornbill, Ground, 118

House-Martin,11, 25, 52, 238 e¢ seg.

House Sparrow, t2, 30, 31, 50, St,
55, 123, 219

Hudson, 54

Hume, 168
Humming-Birds, 7, 25, 161, 162,
167, 168, 205, 253
Humming-bird, Allen’s, 167
Humming-bird, Calliope, 164
Humming-bird, Circe, 154
Humming-bird, Costa's, 164
Humming-birds, Hermit, 165
Humming-bird, Long-tailed, 167
Humming-bird, Saw-billed, 166
Humming-bird, Xantus's, 164
Hylocharis sapphirina, 165
Hyphantornis, 261
Hypolais, 191
Hypolais icterina, 191
Hypothymis, 201

I

TACHE latirostris, 164
Ibididz, 145
Ibis, 1892, 104
1897, 178, 109
— 197
1897, 260
1897, 263
1898, 123, 205
1900, 213, 100, 107
~ g2
Ibis, 143, 145, 146
Ibis, Hagedash, 146
Icteridze, 14, 54, 215, 262
Icterus galbula, 264
Impennes, 76
Tole, 198
Tole virescens, 198 ,
Irby, 95
Iynginze, 117

J

JACAMAR, 94, 130

Jacana, 73, 74

Jackdaw, 12, 22, 27, 62, 64, 102,
108, 112.

Jay, 26, 50, 63, 64, 173, 174

Jay, Common, 173

Jesse, W., 257, 2

Jouy, 240

INDEX

K

KESTREL, 27, 47
Kidder, Dr, 76, 101, 142
Kingfisher, 26, 27, 93, 94, 131,

133,
Kingfisher, Laughing, 93
Kite, 48, 67, 159
Kite, Brahaminy, 159
Kittiwake, 80
Kiwis, 42, 65

L

LAMMERGEYER, 158

Lane, Ambrose, 155

Laniidee, 187

Lapwing, 44, 74

Laridze, 79

Lariformes, 78, 138

Larks, 183, 220

Lark, Bush, 220

Lark, Magpie, 172

Larus argentatus, 80

Larus glaucus, 79

Larus philadelphia, 80, 140

Larus ridibundus, 80

Lawrence, 211

Leisure Hour, 16

Le Souéf, D., 119, 174, 175, 184,
200, 257, 258, 259

Lewis, F., 186, 240

Limpkins, 154

Linnets, 181

Linota flamistris, 181

Liotrichide, 227

Lipoa ocellata, 128

Lochmias nematura, 92

Locustella luscinioides, 191

Locustella nzevia, 19¢

Lophornis magnificus, 163

Lort Phillips, 222

Lory, Crimson-winged, 119

Loxia, 181

Lyre-birds, 213

M

MACHARIRHYNCHUS flaviventer,
200
Macropteryx, 168

279

Magpies, 26, 47, 48, 49, 50, S4s

3, G4, 122; 123, 171, 214,
226

Magpie, Common, 214

Majaqueus zequinoctialis, 100

Maleos, 126, 129

Malurus, 230

Mandarin Duck, 124

Manucodia gouldi, 174

Marshall, Guy, 216, 224 5

— Observations of Mr Darling
to, 212

Martin, 55, 112, 238, e¢ seg.

Martin, Fairy, 241

Martin, House, 11, 25, 52, 238,
239, 240

Martin, Sand, 26, 90, 91, 94, 98

Magacephalon maleo, 129

Megapodes, 72, 73

Megapodiidze, 126

Megapodius cumingi, 127

Megapodius duperreyi, 127

Megapodius eremita, 127

Megapodius macgillivrayi, 127

Megapodius nicobariensis, 127

Meliphagide, 184, 257

Mellisuga minima, 166

Menura alberti, 213

Menura superba, 213

Menure, 213

Menuride, 213

Mergansers, 82, 124

Merganser, Hooded, 124

Mergus, 124

Mergulus alle, 108

Merlin, 67

Meropidz, 94

Merops apiaster, 94

Merrill, Dr, 164

Merula vulgaris, 188

Microglossus aterrimus, 119

Milvinze, 159

Mimidz, 192

Mimus carolinensis, 192

Mimus polyglottus, 192

Minivets, 205

Minoteltidz, 184

Mirafra, 183, 220

Misselthrush, 32

Mniotiltide, 220

Mocking-bird, 192, 193

280

INDEX

Molobrus badius, 54

— pecoris, 54-58

— refaxillaris, 54

Monticola, 110

Moorhen, 13, 27, 33, 55, 154, 156,
157

Motacillide, 112, 183

Mound Birds, 126, 130, 132

Mound Bird, Nicobar, 127

Muscicapa atricapilla, 122

Muscicapa grisola, 199

Muscicapa parva, 199

Muscicapidze, 199, 237

Muscicapula, 201

Myiagra latriostris, 201

Myzomela pectoralis, 184

N

Nature, (1886), 240

—— (1888), 12, 13

Nectarinia famosa, 225

Nectarinia notata, 221

Nectariniidz, 185, 220

Nephile, 224

Nests, preservation of, 33; mud-
made, 143, 171, 214, 244, &c.

Nicobar Mound Bird, 127

Nightingale, 125, 134

Nightjar, 45, 64

Neue Owlet, 68

Noddy, 7

North, Alfred, 258

Nucifraga, 173

Nucifraga caryocatactes, 173

Nutcrackers, 173, 174

Nutcracker, Common, 173

Nuthatches, 122

Nuthatch, Common, 122

Nuthatches, Rock, 228

Nuthatch, Syrian Rock, 228

Nycticorax griseus, 144

oO

OATES, 262
Oceanites oceanicus, 107
Oegotheles, 68

Oestrelata parvirostris, 78

Oil Bird, 103, 104

Opisthocomus hoazin, 139

Oreotrochiltis, 166

Origma rubricata, 231

Orioles, 177, 184, 186, 187, 215, 264

Oriole, Baltimore, 264

Oriolus galbula, 177

Oriole, Golden, 177

Oriolidee, 177

Orthorhynchus cristatus, 205

Orthotomus, 1

Orthotomus longicaudas, 193

Osprey, 51, 161

Ossifraga gigantea, 77

Ostinops decumanus, 263, 266, 267

Ostrich, 42, 65, 71

Ostrich "Farming i in California, by
Crawston, 65

Otididee, 73

Ouzels, 189

Oven-bird, 92, 242, 244

Oven-bird, Red, 244

Owl, 47, 49, 67, 108

Owl, American Barred, 49

Owl, Burrowing, 95, 97

Owl, Eagle, 49, 67

Owl, Hawk, 49

Owl, Little, 108

Owl, Long-eared, 49

Owl, Saw-whet, 49

Owl, Scops, 123

Owl, Screech, 49

Owl, Snowy, 67

Owl, Southern Little, 108

Owl, Tawny, 49

Owl, Tengmalm's, 49

Owlet Nightjar, 68

Oxbirds, 218

Oyster-catcher, 74

P

PALAMEDE, 81
Palamedea cornuta, 139
Pandioninz, 161

Panurus biarmicus, 186
Panyptila, 211

Panyptila cayanensis, 211
Paradise, Birds of, 174, 215

INDEX

281

Paradiseide, 174

Parasites, 52

Paridze, 75, 121, 186, 225, 255

Parrakeets, 95

—— South American, 119

Parrot, 27, 68, 109, 119, 131, 212

Partridge, 55, 72

Parus major, 50, 121, 226

Passeres, 65, 90, 109, 123, 124,
169, 249

Passer domesticus,, 123, 219

Passer montanus, 123

Passer rutilans, 123

Passer salicicola, 51

Passeriformes, 169, 213

Pastor roseus, 111

Pediophili, 7x

Pelargiformes, 143, 210

Pelecanidze, 151

Pelecaniformes, 148

Pelicans, 148, 151

Pellorneum, 236

Penguins, 76

Penguin, Rock-hopper, 77

Penguin of Tristan d’Acunha, 13

Peregrine Falcon, 66

Pericrocotus griseigularis, 205

Petrels, 45, 77; 99, 107, 131, 141

Petrel, Bulwer’s, 45, 108

Petrel, Cape, 77, 103

Petrel, Fork-tailed, 45, 99, 100

Petrel, Fulmar, 22, 43, 78

Petrel, Giant, 77

Petrel, Spectacled, 100

Petrel, Stormy, 99, 100, 108

Petre), Wilson’s, 45, 107

Petronia stulta, 91

Pheethontideze, 43

Phaéthornis, 165

Phaéthornis pygmzeus, 165

Phacellodomus, 247

Phacellodomus, striaticollis, 247

. Phalacrocoracidz, 150

Phalacrocorax carbo, 150

Phalacrocorax graculus, 103

Phalarope, 74

Pheasant, 55, 72

Philhetzrus socius, 217

Phillips, Lort, 222

Pheenicopteri, 81

Phoenicopteridz, 152

Phoniparazena, West Indian, 220
Phylloscopus, 229
Phylloscopus occipitalis, 123
Phylloscopus rufus, 229
Phylloscopus sibilatrix, 229
Phylloscopus trochilus, 229
Pica, 214

Pica caudata, 214

Picarian Species, 27

Picidze, 115, 117

Pies, 172

Pigeon, 62, 69, 70, 103
Pigeon, Dove-cote, 30
Pigeon, Ground, 70
Pinicola, 182

Pipits, 112, 183

Pipit, Indian, 183

Pipit, Meadow, 112

Pipit, Rock, 113

Piprisoma agile, 256

Pittas, 202, 244

Pittidze, 2

Plantain-Eaters, 68
Plataleidz, 1.
Plectorhynchus lanceolatus, 257
Plectrophenax nivalis, 113
Ploceidz, 178, 216, 260
Ploceus, 218

Ploceus baya, 260

Ploceus spilonotus, 261
Plotidae, 151

Plover, 29, 43, 73) 74
Plover, Crab, 73, 74

Plover, Ringed, 43, 74
Plover-crest, De Laland’s, 165
Pnoepyga pusilla, 233
Pochard, 55

Podargidze, 68
Pomatorhinus, 235
Pomatorhinus phayrii, 235
Porzana cinereiceps, 211
Pracellodomus sibilatrix, 248
Pratincola rubetra, 189
Pratincole, 43, 74
Presidente da porcaria, 92
Prionopidze, 172

Prions, 101

Procellaria leachi, 99, 100
Procellaria pelagica, 99, 100
Procellariiformes, 77, 99, 141
Progne, 120

282

INDEX

Psaltriparus, 227
Psaltriparus plumbeus, 227
Psittaciformes, 68, 119, 212
Psophiidze, 154
Pteroptochidz, 93, 203, 248
Ptilotis gracilis, 185
Ptilotis notata, 185
Ptilonarhynchinze, 176
Ptistes coccineopterus, 119
Puffin, 22, 43, 45, 97, 98, 133
Puffin, Common, 97
Puffin, Horned, 108.
Puffinus, 101

Puffinus anglorum, ror
Pyrrhocorax graculus, 102
Pycnonotidze, 196

Q

QUAIL, Indian Bustard, 73
Quail, Little Bustard, 73
Quelch, J. J., 139

R

RAILS, 154, 156, 160, 211

Ralliformes, 154, 211

Ramsay, Dr, 128

Raptores, 27

—— Green lining of their nest, 161

Ratitze, 42, 65, 132. See Rheas,
Cassowaries, Emus, Kiwis, Os-
triches

Raven, 48, 171

Razor-bill, 45

Redpole, 26, 180

Red-throated Sapphire, 165

Redstart, 110, 123, 188

Redwing, 29

Regulinz, 186

Regulus cristatus, 186

Rennie, 4

Rhamphastidee, 118

Rheas, 42, 65

Rice-bird, Dwarf, 217

Richmond, Charles, 211, 218, 242,

247
Ridgway, 162
Rifle-birds, 175

Rifle-bird, Prince Albert's, 175

Ring-Dove, 24

Ring Ouzel, 125

Rissa tridactylus, 80

Robin, 31, 46, 125, 134 .

Roller, 95, 120, 131 ss

Rook, 48, 50, 51, 63, 122, 171, 266

Rose-finches, 180, 182

Rose-coloured Starling, or Pastor,
Iir

Ruby-throat, 163

Rupicola, 103

Ruticilla, 110

s

SAND-GROUSE, 71

Sandpipers, 29, 50, 73, 74
Sandpiper, Green, 50, 75
Sandpiper, Wood, 50, 75
Sand-Martin, 26, 32, 90, 91, '94,

98
Sapphire, Red-throated, 165
Sappho Comet, 166 »»-
Saxicola znanthe, 10g
Saxicola deserti, 109
Saxicola pileata, 109
Sclerurus umbretta, 93
Scops scops, 123 :
Scopus umbretta, 147, 210
Screamers, 81, 139
Sea-Eagle, 159
Sea-Eagle, Pallas’, 159
Seebohm, 144, 193
Selasphorus alleni, 167
Shag, 103, 151
Shearwater, 45, 101
Shearwater, Manx, tor
Sheathbill, 73
Sheldrake, 83
Sheldrake, Ruddy, 83
Shrikes, 187
Shrikes, Cuckoo, 198
Siphia, 123
Sitta czesia, 122
Sitta syriaca, 228
Sittinze, 122
Siurus, 220
Siurus auricapillus, 184
Skuas, 79

INDEX

283

Smew, 82, 124

Smith, Little, 243

Snake-Birds, 151

Snipe, 74

Snow-Bunting, 32, 113, 114

Sophodytes, ‘124

Sparrows, 112, 123, 219

Sparrow-Hawk, 27

Sparrow, House, 12, 30, 31, 50,
51, 55) 123, 219

Sparrow, Mountain, 123

Sparrow, Palm, 228

Sparrow, Rock, 91

Sparrow, Spanish, 51

Sparrow, Tree, 123

Speotyto cunicularia, 96

Spermestes nana, 217

Sphenzeacus, 230

Spizixus canifrons, 197

Spoonbills, 145

Spotted Fly-catcher, 30, 31,134,199

Spur Fowl, 73

Squirrel, 47, 49, 96, 122, 227

Stachyrhidopsis, 196

Stachyrhidopsis rufifrons, 237

Stachyrhis, 196

Stachyrhis assimilis, 236

Stactocichla merulina, 195

Starling, 12, 27, 46, 51, 55, 108,
123, 215, 259

Starling, Glossy, 259

Starling, Meadow, 216

Starling, Rose-coloured, 111

Steatornis caripensis, 103

Stegodyphus, 224

Stellula calliope, 164

Stercorariidz, 79

Stevenson, 55

Stilt, 74

Stilt, Black-winged, 75

Stork, 51, 143, 146, 210

Stork, Black, 147

Stork, White, 146

Story of Birds, by C. Dixon, 28,
169

Streets, Dr, 149

Striges, 67

Sturnella magna, 216

Sturnidz, 111, 215

Sugar-birds, 178, 219

Sula bassana, 149

Sula cyanops, 150

Sula piscator, 149

Sulidz, 148

Sun-birds, 185, 194, 220, 221, ef
5€Y., 243, 253

Sun-bird, Madagascar, 221

Sun-bird, Magnificent, 223

Sun-bird, White-bellied, 223

Sun-bird, Yellow-breasted, 222

Swallows, 12, 25, 50, 106, 120, 201,
238, 241

Swallow, British, 107

Swallow, Bungalow, 240

Swallow, Chestnut-bellied, 242

Swallow, Rufous-necked, 241

Swallow, South African, 112

Swallow, Striped, 241

Swan, 22, 27, 82, 139

Swan, Bewick’s, 139

Swift, 24, 25, 104, 106, 112, 162,
168, 211

Swift, Alpine, 106

Swift, Cayenne, 211

Swifts, Tree, 168

Sylvia atricapilla, 190

Sylvia orphea, 190

Sylviinze, 190, 194, 229

Synallaxis, 246

Synallaxis albescens, 247

Synallaxis erythrothorax, 246

Synallaxis phryganophila, 246

Synallaxis pudica, 247

T

TACHYCINCTA, 50
Tachycincta albiventris, 120
Tailor-Bird, 23, 193, 194
Tailor-bird, Indian, 193
Tanagers, 178, 218
Tanagridze, 178, 218
Tanysiptera sylvia, 93
Telegallus fuscirostris, 128
Tern, 44, 64, 78

Tern, Common, 44

Tern, Lesser, 44
Terpsiphone, 201

Textor, 218

Thalurania glaucopis, 165
Tharrhaleus jerdoni, 205

284

INDEX

Thrasaétus, 159

Thrush, 178, 188, 192, 230

Thrushes, Ant, 203

Thrush, Golden-crowned, 184

Thrush, Laughing, 194

Thrush, Indian Laughing, 195

Thrush, Rock, 110, 188

Thrush, Song, 16, 17, 29, 46, 50,
189

Tichodroma muraria, 110

Tillandsia usneoides, 263

Timeliidze, 193, 235

Timelines, 193, 235, ef seq.

Tinamous, 66

Tit, Bearded, 186

Tit, Bush, 227

Tit, Crowned, 256

Tit, Lead-coloured Bush, 227

Tit, Long-tailed, 255

Tits, Penduline, 255, 256, 264

Titmice, 31, 121, 186, 225

Titmouse, Bearded, 186

Titmouse, Great, 50, 121, 226

Titmouse, Long-tailed, 6, 8, 16,
18, 25, 64, 225, 227

Titmouse, Penduline, 25, 255

Todidee, 94

Todirostrum cinereum, 242

‘Todirostrum maculatum, 243

Tody, 94

Topaza pyra, 166

Toucans, 118, 131

Touche, De La, 227, 233

Tristam, Canon, 112

Tristan d’Acunha, Penguin of, 13

Trochalopterum, 194

Trochalopterum virgatum, 194

Trochilide, 162

Trochilus colubris, 163

Trochilus polytmus, 167

Troglodytidze, 192, 232

Troglodytes furvus, 32

Troglodytes parvulus, 232

Trogons, 118, 131

Trogonidze, 118

Trumpeters, 154

Turdidze, 109, 188

Turdinz, 188, 230

Turdus musicus, 189

Turkeys, Brush, 126, 128

Turnix dussumieri, 73

VIEILLOT, 49

Turnix tanki, 73

Turnstone, 74

Twite, 125, 181

Tyrannidz, 202, 242

Tyrant Birds, 71, 202, 242, 253
Tyrannus dominicensis, 71

vy
UPUPID&, I19

Vv

Vireos, 187

Vireo flavifrons, 188

Vireonidze, 187

Vultures, 43, 67, 157. See Ameri-
can Black Vultures, 43

Vulture, American Black, 43

Vulture, Bearded, 48, 158

Vulture, Egyptian, 48, 157

Vulture, Griffon, 157

Vultur monachus, 158

Vulture, Old World Black, 158

Vulture, Turkey, 49

Ww

WAGTAIL, 30, 31, 113, 183

Wagtail, Cape, 32

Wagtail, Pied, 183

Wagtail, Yellow, 183

Wall Creeper, 110

Wallace, Dr, Theory of Birds
Nests, 4

Wallace, Dr, 22, 24, 28, 129, 130

Wallace, Alfred Russell, 9, 18

Warblers, 188, 190, 229, 257

Warblers, Fantail, 229

Warbler, Garden, 26

Warbler Grasshopper, 190

Warbler, Icterine, 191

Warbler, Marsh, 26, 190

Warbler, Orphean, 190

Warbler, Reed, 26, 191

Warbler, Rufous, 192

Warbler, Savi's, 191

Warbler, Tree, 26, 191

INDEX

285

Warblers, Willow, 229
Warblers, Wood, 183, 220
Waxbill, Blue-breasted, 216
Waxwings, 187, 228
Waxwing, Bohemian, 187
Weavers, Pensile, 261

Weaver, Yellow-crowned, 261
Weaver-birds, 178, 216, 260
Weaver-bird, Indian, 260
Weaver-bird, Sociable, 217
Weaver Finches, 216
Whale-birds, 101 .
Wheatear, 109

Wheatear, Common, r10
Wheatear, Desert, 109
Whinchat, 189

White-eyes, 185, 186, 187
Whitethroat, 26, 190
Willow-Wren, 26, 29, 36, 63, 64,

229

Wilson, 264, 265

Woodcock, 75

Wood-hewers, 202, 242, 244, 246

Wood Nymph, Brazilian, 165

Woodpeckers, 27, 49, 55, 115, 120,
122, 131, 133

Woodpecker, Black, 49

Woodpecker, Green, 115, 117

Woods, J. G., Homes without
Hands, 4, 30

Woodward, Messrs, 210

Wood-Wren, 29, 63, 64, 229

Wren, 17, 22, 24, 32, 33) 74: 192,
232, 233, 235

Wren, Common, 232

Wren, Willow, 26, 29, 36, 63, 64,

229
Wren, Wood, 29, 63, 64, 229
Wrynecks, 117

Y

YELLOW-BIRD, 184, 220
Yuhina nigrimentum, 227
Yuhina pallida, 227

&

ZEOCEPHUS, 201
Zoologist, The (1898), p. 224
Zosteropidze, 185

PRINTED BY
TURNBULL AND SPEARS,
EDINBURGH

A a7

las

™,

< Oh a

~ RARER
Dixon, Charles aaa
Di
\_ ana 6 NESTS oe
TITLE
1902 285 pp.

Sci.Ed,

gene Secret