66 DISPOSITION TO SECURE A TERRITORY 



again, we may invest it with a deeper sig- 

 nificance and seek its origin in some specific 

 congenital disposition determined on purely 

 biological grounds. 



Which of these three shall we choose ? The 

 first by itself requires but little consideration; 

 for though it might explain the initial visit, it 

 cannot account for the persistency with which 

 the plot of ground is afterwards -resorted to. 

 Supposing, however, that we combine the first 

 and the second ; supposing, that is to say, we 

 assume, for the purpose of argument, that the 

 initial visit is fortuitous, and that constancy is 

 suppUed by habit formation — would that be a 

 satisfactory interpretation ? It is a simple one, 

 inasmuch as it only requires that a male shall 

 alight by chance in a particular place for a few 

 mornings in succession in order that the process 

 may be set in motion. Now an essential con- 

 dition of habit formation is recurrent repetition ; 

 given this repetition and, it is true, any mode of 

 activity is liable to become firmly estabhshed. 

 But how can we explain the repetition ? Even 

 if we are justified in assuming that the initial 

 visit is purely an accidental occurrence, we 

 cannot presume too far upon the laws of chance 

 and assume that the repetition, at first, is also 

 fortuitous. 



So that we come back to the congenital 

 basis, the last of our three propositions. And it 

 will, I think, be admitted that the facts give us 

 some grounds for beheving that the securing of 

 the territory has its root in the inherited con- 



