402 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



was confined to two birds, and two only, nor were there any 

 others in their immediate neighbourhood. Therefore, if I 

 saw them both roll — which I did — then both the male and 

 female rolled, if the two were male and female. But the two had 

 just paired : therefore they were male and female. One of them 

 rolled first. Almost certainly this one was the male, but, to 

 quote my conscientious text: — "I am not quick enough with 

 the glasses to be quite certain." The other (and it was certainly 

 the other) then rolled also in the less pronounced manner which 

 I have described.* The doubt then is not whether the female 

 rolled, but whether she rolled more or less vigorously than the 

 male in this instance. Discrimination is a great matter —but so 

 is context. In the same conclusive way I have shownf that the 

 female Peewit not only, on occasion, rolls, but that she also goes 

 through the same specialised pecking or picking-up actions as 

 the male. Essentially, therefore, all of what the male does, as 

 a result of which we have a circular depression with grass-stems 

 laid on it I — a nest, in short, in structure, if not in function — 

 the female does also, in kind if not in degree, and moreover 

 (this is the specially important point in my observations) the 

 two birds act thus, in partnership, under a common stimulus 

 which either is the pairing, or includes that in its effects, and is 

 therefore certainly sexual. It is, therefore, a legitimate con- 

 clusion that the nest itself has arisen out of these actions, 

 common to both the sexes. Miss Haviland is mistaken in 

 supposing — as she appears to suppose§ — that I attribute the 

 part played by the hen to imitation merely. To argue on an 

 assumption is not to accept the assumption. 



I shall show later that bi-sexual action, of the " antic " kind, 

 in birds is not so infrequent as Miss Haviland is under the 

 impression that it is,|| and that in saying that I do not give any 

 other examples of it than that of the Peewit,1l she is — unless 

 this refers only to my paper specially on that bird — much 



* See (for full confirmation of above) ' Zoologist,' April, 1902, pp. 136, 



187 ; also ' Bird Life Gleanings,' pp. 164, 165. 



f ' Zoologist,' pp. 136-7. 



I See post, p. 406. 



§ ' Zoologist,' pp. 224-5. 



|| Ibid., p. 223. 



1T Ibid., pp. 223-4. 



