38 Variations in the Nests of the same Species of Birds. (January, 
markable instance of variation in the mode of nest building by the 
same species. The history of several of our North American 
birds also affords abundant evidence that it is by no means safe 
to assume that the same species may not exhibit a “ great differ- 
ence in the position and structure of the nest,” - under varying cir- 
cumstances. 
The recent observations of Dr. James C. Merrill (MSS.) 
shows that the /cterus cucullatus displays quite as striking vari- 
ations as this warbler. Some of its nests, like those of the lat- 
ter, are buried in tangled and elaborately interwoven masses of 
the Spanish moss, and have no apparent resemblance to others - 
built in the more normal pensile style of its congeners, such as 
the orchard oriole and others. So, too, with the nests of the 
Empidonax acadicus. ‘he first identified nest of this species I ever 
saw was a flat platform, so common in Contopus borealis; and this 
is its usual style about Philadelphia. The second was a deep 
cup-like nest, surrounded and surmounted by a curious chevaux- 
de-frise, somewhat in the style of the magpie and the mocking- 
bird. This style is common in Indiana. And now within a few 
months, I have received two other nests equally well identified, 
one of them with the eggs, the nests being pensile and not unlike 
those of the orioles. Such facts as these warn us that we need not 
and should not, on too slight grounds, discredit either the care- 
fulness or the truthfulness of our fellow-workers in observing the 
hidden and often varying facts of natural history, even when their 
observations do not accord with our own. The account of the 
nesting of the D. dominica given by Mr. Nuttall has always seemed 
in the last degree improbable, and to be in conflict with that of 
Mr. Audubon, and their discrepancy has long been a stumbling- 
block to students until more light began to be thrown upon its 
history. Mr. Giles’ revelations gave us some clue to what seemed 
the fabulous narrative of Mr. Nuttall. For when we remember 
how closely ee stand the trees in a cypress swamp, how the _ 
long “ropes” of 7i//andsia do swing from tree to tree, we can now 
understand how Mr. Nuttall, having never seen it himself, may 
have imperfectly understood the information he received from 
another in his account of its swinging nest. And now Mr. Brew- | 
ster confirms substantially Mr. Audubon’s discredited account of 
his experiences. After all, these pioneers in American ornithol- 
-~ ogy may not have been so absurdly inconsistent, or so entirely at 
_ fault as we, in our own ignorance, have taken for granted. - 
