PENDCLOL'S NESTS. 
183 
stemsj which would thus be brought nearer together 
and support the nest on its siden, Wt not on its bottom. 
This is, consequently, a pendulous nest, because it 
hangs ; and yet it is very different from what may he 
called the typical perfection of this style of building in 
the architecture of birds. This perfection, however, is 
developed in the very same genus, as wiE be apparent 
in the following account of the Parus pendulinus L. 
“ The most curious circumstance,” observes Dr. La- 
tham, “ of this species is the nest, Iteing of a most sin- 
gular construction, in shape rountlish, not unlike that of 
the long-tailed titmouse, but composed of still finer ma- 
terials. The nest is made of the down of the wiUow 
and poplar, as also of the thistle. These it entwines 
with its bEl into a close body, strengthening the fabric 
outwardly with smaU fibres and roots of plants, and 
lining the whole with some of the loose soft down above 
mentioned. This is hung on the extreme end of some 
weak branch which projects over the water, and is whoEy 
covered, except a hole left for entrance, which appears 
on one side, and generaEy that which faces the water. 
By this cautious instinct neither quadruped nor rep- 
tile wiE venture to attack it.” So wonderful does this nest 
appear to the simple people of Bologna, in the marshes 
of which place this species is found, that “ the peasants 
thereabouts hold both bird and nest in great estimation, 
hanging one of the latter near the door of their huts. 
As to the bird itself, it is accounted almost sacred ; and 
tliey behold it with that superstitious veneration which is 
so commonly the effect of unenlightened minds.” + But, 
perhaps, the most elaborate of the pendidous architects, 
at least among the European birds, is the Languedoc 
titmouse Par us IVarboniensu), mentioned by the au- 
thor we have just quoted, as “ similar in manners to the 
penduline species, and not inferior in respect to the 
* General History, vot vii, p. 259. It is much to be regretted that the 
notires under the head of “Propagation” in Teraminck’s 
short, and at the same time so vague, as to render it ot* no autnoncy upon 
these questions. 
t Latham, General History, vol. vii. p. 262. 
N 4 
