MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 
115 
disease and old age. He does not make an estimate of the loss of 
young during the nesting season. 
When I began to keep a record of nesting birds I gave more or less 
attention, to such questions as protective coloration, ruses of the parent 
birds to direct attention to themselves and away from the nest, to the 
question whether the male offered himself as a martyr by assuming a 
conspicuous place in showing his colors and giving his song and the 
physical ability of each species to protect its nest. I shall not attempt 
to give any observations on these matters. The question of protective 
coloration has been in sharp controversy by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. 
Thayer which shows that the matter is a debatable one. If Mr. Roose- 
velt is correct in maintaining that birds do not depend upon protective 
coloration but on the instincts that command silence, hiding and ac- 
tivity when trouble presents itself then the majority of our popular 
books of birds and insects should be revised. 
During the year 1911 I made statistics of the nesting of Song (Melos- 
piza fasciata), Chipping, (Spizella socialis) and Field (Spizella pusilla), 
Sparrows; the Robin (Merula migratoria) and Catbird (Galeoscoptes 
carolinensis) . These were selected because they were more abundant 
in the locality along the Rouge River, north of Dearborn, Mich., where 
I took my tramps, than other species and the nests were more easily 
located than in any other district with which I was acquainted. Though 
other species were under observation yet they did not offer as good 
material for comparison but will be referred to later. 
In 1912 my observations were confined mainly to the Meadowlark 
fSturnella magna), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Brown Thrasher 
(Toxostoma rufum) and the Yellow Warbler (Dendroica astiva), with 
observations on two nests of the Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea). 
I found the nests of the ground builders more difficult to locate than 
those that build in trees. The purpose of my investigations was to 
note the mortality of bird life during the nesting period under natural 
conditions and to later compare them under artificial or protective 
states such as in the use of nesting boxes and with their natural and 
other enemies removed. 
Of the Song Sparrows’ nests found, seven in all, four were in bushes 
averaging from one to four feet, above ground and the other three 
were on the ground. Those nesting on the ground lost the first entire 
set of eggs in each nest. In two of those nests the second set of eggs 
were destroyed, probably by ground animals. The third was successful 
in hatching but the young never lived to fly. In other words there was 
a total loss of 100 per cent for the season as these observations were 
carried up to the 20th of June. As I was unable to locate the nests 
of any of this species after that date with eggs I presume they did not 
nest again. These nests had a total of twenty-five eggs, five of which 
hatched but none of which lived. 
The four nests in bushes fared better and yet their history does not 
make pleasant reading. One nest was destroyed by a storm, and the 
birds, if they ever built again, selected a new locality. The other three 
pairs fared as follows: one had two young in the nest and an infertile 
egg, the second had three young, and the third four young and an un- 
hatched Cowbird’s (Molothrus ater) egg. The two first named got their 
young out in safety, whether they lived to mature I am unable to say. 
