[ 2 S3 3 



The bare fkSt therefore that a hedge-fparrow, or other fmall 

 bird, being obferved to feed a young cuckow, is by no means 

 fatisfa£tory proof that the cuckow's egg was hatched by fuch a 

 dam, efpecially as me rauft have continued to fit after her own 

 five eggs had been removed ; nor can we fuppofe that the cuc- 

 kow could have depofited her fingle egg, without having per- 

 ceived the intrufion of fo large a ftranger. 



Can we prefume again, that h edge- fpar rows are not like other 

 birds created to propagate their own fpecies ; but, on the con- 

 trary, chiefly for the purpofe of hatching and feeding young 

 euckows ? 



That diftinguifhed anatomift Mr. Hunter hath difTe£ted feveral 

 hen euckows n , and found that they are as well formed for incu- 

 bation as other birds 0 ; but fuppofing that they were not fo, why 

 does not the cuckow pitch upon the neft of a thrufh or black- 

 bird, rather than that of a hedge-fparrow, as both neft and dam 

 of the former are fo much nearer to the proper fize, and the 

 young cuckow therefore muft have an infinitely better chance of 

 being reared ? 



But other objections remain to the popular opinion, as, till all 

 the proper circumftances are proved to eftabiifh the fadl, we muft 

 reafon from analogy. 



If the hedge-fparrow (or other fmall bird) is a complete 

 mother to the young cuckow, me muft not only difrepard the 

 removal of her own five eggs, but the colour of them, for the 



n Which were fhot in the ifland of Bellifle during the winter. 



° This is not the cafe with the oftrich, which leaves her ep-g-s in the 

 fand, the legs of that bird being fo long as not to be dilpofed of under 

 her body, which would be fcorched by the burning foil, as likevvife 

 the exdufion of the young too much accelerated by the united warmth 

 of the fands and the dam. It need fcarcely be obferved, that an oftrich's- 

 neft muft be on the groundi 



cuckow's 



