Summary 135 
reduction. But ‘‘C’’, whose territory abutted that of ‘‘B’’, gave 
no ground to the latter. 
4. Feeding in relation to nesting territories. Though most of 
the feeding was done on the nesting territories, a neutral feed- 
ing territory was discovered and others were indicated because, 
now and then, the Larks would go off on purposeful flights 
entirely out of their areas. 
5. The relation of the female to the nesting territory. The 
female would mark the same territory as that marked by the 
male and she, if anything, was more closely restricted to it than 
the male. She selected the nest site with little or no regard to 
the center of the area. 
D. Courtship. 
1. Fighting. Prior to the establishment of well-defined terri- 
tories, fighting between males is promiscuous; after that, fighting 
takes place only on territory boundaries, where two Lark areas 
juxtapose. The males, at the boundary line, frequently strut 
before each other and often peck the ground furiously, like 
barnyard cocks, but all fighting is in the air. On a boundary 
this fighting often results in a curious game of tit for tat as the 
male Larks chase each other back and forth. Every adventitious 
Lark, wandering into established territories, is promptly evicted 
by the male. Such a bird will leave without protest. So far as 
noted the female is never the direct cause of fighting, in fact 
fighting is most frequently noted when the female is brooding 
and the males are no longer attending her. Only once was a 
female noted to drive out another Lark, a male. She was defend- 
ing a recent nestling. 
2. Reactions of male and female to each other. The female 
has no courting maneuvers and was never observed to sing. 
Only once was she seen to importune sexual attention and then 
by a crouch and flutter similar to the actions of the female House 
Sparrow. The male struts frequently before the female with 
wings dropped, tail spread and horns up. He will assume this 
attitude before another male at the territory boundary 
Attention is drawn to the discrepancy between these shores 
tions of territory, possession of territory, fighting and signifi- 
cance of fighting, and those of many previous and some recent 
writers who have been inclined to give to the actions of these 
irds an unwarranted anthropomorphic significance. 
