128 TnK Rekd-Bunting 



upon as the chief home of this species, where they (sic) maj- be met with at all 

 seasous uttering their somewhat harsh aud unvaried notes from the tops of the 

 bushes, or whilst clinging to the reed stems ; aud in these localities the nests are 

 built on tlie ground, frequently at the foot of a small bush, placed in a hollow 

 amongst the soft moss that forms the foundation." 



It was around these broads that I first met with the Reed-Bunting in any 

 numbers ; I had seen individual examples from time to time not far from Canter- 

 bur}', but I never obtained the nest until 1885, when I first met with it on 

 Hickling Marsh on the 13th May, and Mr. Salter sent me a second taken at 

 Dounton, in Salisbur_v, on the 21st May. Curiously enough, although I had never 

 come across it during many vears in which I had birds'-uested in Kent, the mouth 

 after I had secured these two uests, my friend, Mr. William Drake, forwarded a 

 third to me which he had f )und on the saltings at Kemsley, near Sheppy. When 

 at the broads, in June, 1886, I dropped upon a nest (on the 2nd of the mouth) 

 at Mudfleet, contaiuing five entirely unmarked eggs, but these were so much 

 incubated and so brittle that, with the greatest care, I was only able to save 

 two of them. (See Jig. igS.J 



All my nests were in slight depressions in mossy ground, sodden with wet 

 and not always safe to walk upon, even with bare feet and trousers rolled up 

 above the knees ; indeed I and my companion Mr. O. Jauseu had to walk very 

 circumspectly, part of the marsh here and there being detached and simply 

 floating in a pool of deep water, so that as you put a foot down it would dip 

 under, wetting you frequently to above the ankle. The nests are not con- 

 spicuous, are partly overhung by wiry grass-tussocks or sedge, and might easily 

 be overlooked, excepting for the presence of the birds which causes one to search 

 for them carefully : but to men whose eyes have been trained, as Entomologists, 

 from their boyhood, aud who have been accustomed to recognize and pounce 

 upon tin\' ground insects, a bird's nest is a very large and conspicuous object, 

 however cleverly concealed. Tliis is a very strong argument against the theory 

 as to the cause of mimicry in nature ; for it seems to me absurd to argue that 

 insectivorous birds, whose eyesight is so keen aud quick that they can follow 

 every movement of the tiniest insect on the wing, should, when anxious for food, 

 be deceived b}' the vague resemblance of a conspicuous moth to a dead leaf;* 

 that the powerful vision of a predaceous bird should be utterly unable to detect a 

 sitting bird on account of her subdued colouring, or Iier uest because its walls 

 were decked with lichen. That mimicry does exist we know; that it renders 



* .^s a matter of fact my own experiments conclusively proved that they were not deceivei.1, hut only 

 slightly puzzled for a moment or two ; the resemblance to an insect being evidently more apparent to the bird 

 than its similarity to a crumpled leaf. 



