422 



Brewer^s Remarks on 



f 



one, he is compelled to infer that he did not witness the 



other. Mr. Nuttall does not tell us, in so many words, 



that he ever saw the nest of the chipping sparrow. Are 



• we thence to infer that he never did see one, but that his 



w 



description of it is "related at secondhand?" Where 

 then will Mr. Ord find the position in question, which if 

 he could find assumed, he would be amply justified in 

 pronouncing it untenable ? What naturalist ever assumed 

 it? Not Wilson, foiL he only expresses his ignorance on 

 the subject.- Not Audubon, for, as far as we can see, he 



w 



leaves the point untouched. And most certainly not Nut- 

 tall. We are compelled to think that he has but wasted 

 his time in demolishing an imaginary position. 



On the second point I can offer nothing from personal 

 observation, either in support of, or in opposition to Mr. 

 Ord's views. In the only instances that have fallen under 

 my notice, the eggs of the cow-troopial alone were 

 hatched. On this head, the writer of the above paper 

 in Loudon modestly observes ; " The opinion advanced 

 by Wilson, and echoed by others, that the cow-bunting is 

 ' invariably the first hatched, is mere conjecture, totally 

 unsupported by facts. It must now yield to truth; al- 

 though the sentimental reader will, doubtless, regret that 

 the profound^ reflections on the ^ wisdom of nature' will 

 lose much of their efiicacy or application." After such 

 a preface, w^e are naturally led to expect that Mr. Ord 

 would make good his point, by at least one instance, in 

 which the cow-troopial can be proved to have been hatch- 

 ed after at least one of the other inmates of the nest. 

 What are w^e to think then, when, although he relates 

 many of his observations, to make good his point, from 

 not one of them can we infer, with any degree of cer- 

 tainty, that the cow-troopial was not, in every instance, 



*^ 



