NESTING HABITS OF OROPENDOLA — CHAPMAN 361 



earth they separate, fly to the nearest perch and sit there quietly for 

 a few seconds side by side. Then they usually return to the nest 

 site. These conflicts may be repeated from time to time but cease 

 when nest buildin«^ is under way and right to the possession of a 

 site is acknowledged. 



An extreme illustration of the desire for close companionship 

 while nesting occurred in the season of 1928. On January iil two 

 females began to build nests Nos. 3 and 4 of group 2. The birds 

 were on friendly terms, selected sites not more than a foot apart, 

 and proceeded quietly with their work. On February 3, when the 

 nests were well started, they were joined by two more females who 

 insisted on aiding them in the construction of their nests. I quote 

 from my journal: 



Neet No. 3 is the more advanced and tlie newcomer confines her efforts to 

 the upper or attachment portion where she is permitted to work by the owner. 

 No. 4 has room fur only one worker and every attempt on the part of the 

 volunteer to assi.st is at once resented by the owner. The birds then lock grips 

 and wliirl downward lighting and squealing as they fall. An occasional float- 

 ing feather shows that these aerial combats are not mere matters of form. 

 For the greater part of the time the two birds sit motionless, with bills half 

 open glaring fixedly into space; No. 4 on her nest, the would-be helper on a 

 branch distant only a few inches. For at least 10 minutes they hold this 

 pose then spring at each other and, grappling, whirl downward. 



The first-named volunteer finally built a complete nest, using the 

 attachment of No. 3 for her foundation, w^hile the one who for some 

 time persisted in her efl'orts to assist the builder of No. 4, finally 

 built a nest of her own from an immediately adjoining branch. 



In some cases, however, the matter of site ownership is not so 

 quickly settled, when the actions of the builder of nest No. 4 and her 

 rejected assistant developed the singular performance to which I have 

 before referred. The mo.st ])ionounced and prolonged dispute of tliis 

 nature was made by two females in group 2, of the 1927 nesting sea- 

 son. These birds were first observed at 7.35 on the morning of Janu- 

 iwy 19, facing one another on terminal site twigs about 1 foot apart. 

 One went through the motions of the male's " crash " call repeatedly. 

 I could see its bill moved but could hear no sound. The other, with 

 liead bowed, listened. Finally they grappled and fell fighting. The 

 struggle thus begun lasted for five days before each bird was recon- 

 ciled to the presence of the other, and at the end of this time each 

 began building on its own site. Sometimes one, sometimes the other. 

 " iield the floor,"' but they never both called together and the bird 

 addressed, ajjparently oblivious of all else, gave her entire attention 

 to tiie speaker. Seen at such times, one woidd assume that the calling 

 bird was a courting male, the silent one a receptive female, but this 

 illusion would be destroyed when the listening bird would claim the 

 privileges of the floor and speak as vigorously as her j)rotagonist, 



