110 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



should not have flown abroad, but had she caught her prey, 

 she should have been at the nest with it before and not 

 after the advent of the male. Moreover, the usual method must 

 now, in all cases, be assumed where there is not sufficient 

 evidence to prove its having been in abeyance. I now left. 



Coming again at 4.15 p.m. I find the bird standing on the 

 rim of the nest as though she had fed the young, not long since. 

 Some time between 4.30 and 5 I heard the cry in the plantation, 

 but I could only see one bird amongst the trees, and as the 

 female had then left the nest, it may have been hers. This bird 

 was still there when I went back to watch the nest at 4.55, and 

 it was not till 5.25 that the female returned to it, but instead of 

 feeding the chicks merely sat statuesquely on the rim. There 

 was no importunacy on the part of the chicks. In this case 

 there has been no good evidence of the presence of the male in 

 the plantation — the facts point rather the other way — and accord- 

 ingly the female, though she is some three quarters of an hour 

 away brings nothing back with her. This, again, looks as 

 though she were dependent on the male for her food supply — or, 

 at least, as though the habit of awaiting him for it, were so 

 confirmed as not to be easily broken through. 



(To be continued.) 



