424 
Brewer’s Remarks on 
The last position which Mr. Ord combats is, that “ the 
birds selected by the cow-bunting, are always smaller 
than herself.” In support of his views on this subject 
he mentions, that he twice found the parasite in the nest 
of the wood thrush, which bird is larger than the troopial. 
The eggs were in these instances set upon and hatched 
by the owners of the respective nests. The credit of the 
discovery of this fact is undoubtedly due to Mr. Ord. The 
scientific world is indebted to him so far as this goes, but 
no farther. For the rule is not the less a general one, 
because exceptions to it have been found. For, while 
the cow-troopial’s egg is frequently detected in the nests 
of no less than fifteen different species, all of which are 
smaller than that bird, it has been thus far discovered in 
the nest of but one solitary species which is of a larger 
size, and that in only two instances. 
On this subject Audubon has fallen into a singular, and 
for him, unusual error. He says, “ it is also a very remark- 
able circumstance, that although the cow-bird is larger 
than the species in the nest of which it deposits its eggs, 
the eggs themselves are not much superior in size to those 
of their intended foster-parents.” “ If this were the fact, 
it would justly be entitled to the epithet remarkable,” 
says Mr. Ord. In his views on this point, Mr. Ord is 
undoubtedly correct, and Audubon singularly mistaken. 
We are willing to award to the former all the credit that 
js his due, for correcting this mistake. But if Mr. Ord had 
contented himself with simply pointing out the mistake, 
instead of descending and disgracing the pages of his 
paper by bestowing upon Audubon the contemptuous 
epithet of “ sagacious naturalist ;” instead of exulting at, 
and ridiculing the overthrow of the scheme of “ adapta- 
tion of means to ends which the Author of Birds of 
the Cow Black-Bird. 
425 
America deduces from this supposed fact, — instead of 
instituting an odious comparison between Nuttalland Audu- 
bon, by styling the former the more discerning naturalist, 
it would have been much more to his credit. Such things 
are alike unmanly and unbecoming the cause of science. 
We can overlook a mistake in one who has done so much 
to the cause of natural history. We cannot so readily 
excuse the correction of that error when apparently dic- 
tated by feelings of a personal character. 
In this same paper we also find the following paragraph : 
“ It appears to be the prevailing opinion, that if the cow- 
bird deposits her egg in a nest wherein the owner has not 
yet begun to lay, the nest is either deserted forthwith or 
the egg of the intruder is so buried by the addition of 
fresh materials, that it becomes abortive. On this head 
I am not prepared to speak further, than that the opinion 
wears the appearance of probability.” His opinion ap- 
pears to have been strengthened by the following circum- 
stance. “ On the 11th of June I found the nest of the 
red-eyed flycatcher containing a cow-bird’s egg, and one 
of her own. As from the smallness of the nest, the cow- 
bird could not enter its cavity, she was compelled to sit 
over it ; and her egg in dropping, broke the fly-catcher’s. 
The nest was abandoned.” This fact has very little 
bearing on the point in question, as it is one of the most 
common occurrences to find nests forsaken, in which one 
or more of the eggs have been broken. Mr. Ord is, 
however, mistaken in regarding it as the prevailing opi- 
nion that such is invariably the case. Audubon implies 
the possibility of there being instances to the contrary, 
and Mr. Nuttall plainly tells us, that such is the fact. 
Could not the author of the article in Loudon, draw any 
inference from the following, which we find in Audubon ? 
55 
VOL. T. PART IV. 
