18 THE HOME-LIVE OF 
of the structure. Such is undoubtedly the case in many 
instances, but by no means in all. For example, on my visit 
to Gardiner’s Island in 1903, I photographed a beach-nest 
which was some four-and-a-half feet high—the tallest 
ground nest on the island. In 1905, I again photographed 
the same nest, and comparative measurement of the prints 
(gauged by the old bird) shows practically no change in 
the size of the nest. In 1910 a nest standing on the same 
site was hardly one-third as large. In 1911 my friends 
measured and photographed the largest beach nest, which 
I at once recognised as my old subject, arisen within one 
year to its former shape and dimensions. Another instance 
was that of a tree nest, photographed in 1903 and 1910, 
which was found to have decreased in the interval about 
one-fifth of its bulk. 
Some idea of the weight of an Osprey’s nest may be 
gathered from the fact that a moderate-sized eyrie which 
was transported from Gardiner’s Island to the New York 
Zoological Park, weighed over four hundred pounds.* 
A nest such as that illustrated in Plate 4 would probably 
tip the scales at half a ton. ‘The photograph, which was 
taken in 1910, can never be duplicated, for the following 
spring the owners returned to find their home in ruins 
upon the stone wall at the foot of the tree. The birds, 
with instinctive devotion to the ancestral cradle, made 
strenuous efforts to render habitable the nest as it lay. 
But they were evidently confronted with conditions that 
they were unable to meet, and in June the eggs were 
found on a little bed of seaweed placed nearby upon 
the ground. 
It has frequently been remarked that trees which have 
held Osprey’s nests for a number of years gradually die 
(Plate 5). ‘The branches in proximity to the nest are the 
first to succumb, followed ultimately by the denudation of 
the entire tree. This is doubtless atrributable to the bulky 
and decaying mass of the nest itself, to the oil from fish, 
* Beebe, ‘‘ Zoological Society Bulletin,” No. 11, 1903, p. 120. 
