334 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
see both the birds in a neighbouring tree. The above observa- 
tions, then, hardly suggest the female bird having been relieved 
on the eggs by the male, or why should the latter, having taken 
his place, have twice left the nest and returned to it at these 
short intervals? The facts seem more in accordance with the 
unassisted incubation of the female, or perhaps with incubation 
not having yet seriously begun—-all the eggs perhaps are not 
yet laid. 
Down again at 3.45 p.m. 
3.50.—Bird off, unrelieved by the other. 
4.10.—Bird on. 
5.15.—Off again, and I did not see any return to the nest or 
tree between this and 6.30 p.m., when I left. The nest, there- 
fore, has been left twice, but there was no change upon it, 
either time. 
May 15th. —- Watched the tree from 2 p.m., and at 2.35 the 
Crow flew off, presumably from the nest. Hither it uttered its 
note, as it flew, or the partner bird did so, somewhere near, but I 
think the first, and afterwards I saw the two together—no change, 
therefore. 
2.40.—Bird on. 
3.15.— Ditto, from which I learnt that it must have gone off 
some time between these two, but this I missed. 
3.40.—Bird off. 
I then walked to the tree and struck it violently several times 
with my walking-stick camp-stool, but no bird flew out. It is 
clear, therefore, that, though I missed the second going off, 
there had been no change on the nest, for if one had gone on to 
them then, some time between 2.40 and 3.15, my striking the 
tree would in all probability have driven it out. But this is 
made almost superfluous by the fact that, before the bird came 
on again, at 3.15, I had seen the two flying round about in the 
usual manner. 
May 16th.—Down at about 5.30 (I think a.m., but ae 
omitted to mark it). At 6.30 the two Crows began to fly about, 
‘‘arrreing,’’ as usual, and at 6.85 one of them went on to the 
nest, which must, for some time before, and probably all the 
time, have been empty. 
May 27th.—Wishing to see the first activities of Crows 
