individual should be subordinated to the welfare of the community as a whole there is no dissension, apart from an occasional quarrel here and there.

In response, however, to some internal organic change, which occurs early in the season, individuality emerges as a factor in the developing situation, and one by one the males betake themselves to secluded positions, where each one, occupying a limited area, isolates itself from companions. Thereafter we no longer find that certain fields are tenanted by flocks of greater or less dimensions, while acres of land are uninhabited, but we observe that the hedgerows and thickets are divided up into so many territories, each one of which contains its owner. This procedure, with of course varying detail, is typical of that of many species that breed in Western Europe. And since such a radical departure from the normal routine of behaviour could scarcely appear generation after generation in so many widely divergent forms, and still be so uniform in occurrence each returning season, if it were not founded upon some congenital basis, it is probable that the journey, whether it be the extensive one of the Warbler or the short one of the Reed-Bunting, is undertaken in response to some inherited disposition, and probable also that the disposition bears some relation to the few acres in which the bird ultimately finds a resting place. Whilst for the purpose of the theory I shall give expression to this behaviour in terms of that theory, and speak of it as a disposition to secure a territory, using the word disposition, which has been rendered current in recent discussion, for that part of the inherited nature which has been organised to subserve a specific biological purpose—strict compliance with the rules of psychological analysis requires a simpler definition; let us therefore say "disposition to remain in a particular place in a particular environment."

But even granting that this disposition forms part of the hereditary equipment of the bird, how is the process of reproduction furthered? The mere fact of remaining in or about a particular spot cannot render the attainment of reproduction any less arduous, and may indeed add to the difficulties, for any number of individuals might congregate together and mutually affect one another's interests. A second disposition comes, however, into functional activity at much the same stage of sexual development, and manifests itself in the male's intolerance of other individuals. And the two combined open up an avenue through which the individual can approach the goal of reproduction. In terms of the theory I shall refer to this second disposition as the one which is concerned with the defence of the territory.

Broadly speaking, these two dispositions may be regarded as the basis upon which the breeding territory is founded. Yet inasmuch as the survival value of the dispositions themselves must have depended upon the success of the process as a whole, it is manifest that peculiar significance must not be attached to just the area occupied, which happens to be so susceptible of observation; other contributory factors must also receive attention, for the process is but an order of relationships in which the various units have each had their share in determining the nature and course of subsequent process, so that, as Dr Stout says, when they were modified, it was modified.

Now the male inherits a disposition which leads it to remain in a restricted area, but the disposition cannot determine the extent of that area. How then are the boundaries fixed? That they are sometimes adhered to with remarkable precision, that they can only be encroached upon at the risk of a conflict—all of this can be observed with little difficulty. But if we regard them as so many lines definitely delimiting an area of which the bird is cognisant, we place the whole behaviour on a different level of mental development, and incidentally alter the complexion of the whole process. It would be a mistake, I think, to do this. Though conscious intention as a factor may enter the situation, there is no necessity for it to do so; there is no necessity, that is to say, for the bird to form a mental image of the area to be occupied and shape its course accordingly. The same result can be obtained without our having recourse to so complex a principle of explanation, and that by the law of habit formation. In common with other animals, birds are subject to this law in a marked degree. An acquired mode of activity becomes by repetition ingrained in the life of the individual, so that an action performed to-day is liable to be repeated to-morrow so long as it does not prejudice the existence or annul the fertility of the individual.

Let us see how this may have operated in determining the limits of the area acquired, and for this purpose let us suppose that we are observing a male Reed-Bunting recently established in some secluded piece of marsh land. Scattered about this particular marsh are a number of small willows and young alder trees, each one of which is capable of providing plenty of branches suitable for the bird to perch upon, and all are in a like favourable position so far as the outlook therefrom is concerned. Well, we should expect to find that each respective tree would be made use of according to the position in which the bird happened to find itself. But what actually do we find—one tree singled out and resorted to with ever-increasing certainty until it becomes an important point in relation to the occupied area, a headquarters from which the bird advertises its presence by song, keeps watch upon the movements of its neighbours, and sets out for the purpose of securing food. We then take note of its wanderings in the immediate vicinity of the headquarters, especially as regards the direction, frequency, and extent of the journeys; and we discover not only that these journeys proceed from and terminate in the special tree, but that there is a sameness about the actual path that is followed. The bird takes a short flight, searches a bush here and some rushes there, returns, and after a while repeats the performance; we on our part mark the extreme limits reached in each direction, and by continued observation discover that these limits are seldom exceeded, that definition grows more and more pronounced, and that by degrees the movements of the bird are confined within a restricted area. In outline, this is what happens in a host of cases. By repetition certain performances become stereotyped, certain paths fixed, and a routine is thus established which becomes increasingly definite as the season advances.

But while it would be quite untrue to say that this routine is never departed from, and equally profitless to attempt to find a point beyond which the bird will under no circumstances wander, yet there is enough definition and more than enough to answer the purpose for which the territory has, I believe, been evolved, that is to say the biological end of reproduction. Again, however, the process of adjustment is a complex one. Habit plays its part in determining the boundaries in a rough and ready manner, but the congenital basis, which is to be found in the behaviour adapted to a particular environment, is an important factor in the situation. For example, if instead of resting content with just a bare position sufficient for the purpose of reproduction, the Guillemot were to hustle its neighbours from adjoining ledges, the Guillemot as a species would probably disappear; or if instead of securing an area capable of supplying sufficient food both for itself and its young, the Chiffchaff were to confine itself to a single tree, and, after the manner of the Guillemot, trust to spasmodic excursions into neutral ground for the purpose of obtaining food, the Chiffchaff as