again, we may invest it with a deeper significance and seek its origin in some specific congenital disposition determined on purely biological grounds.
Which of these three shall we choose? The first by itself requires but little consideration; for though it might explain the initial visit, it cannot account for the persistency with which the plot of ground is afterwards -resorted to. Supposing, however, that we combine the first and the second; supposing, that is to say, we assume, for the purpose of argument, that the initial visit is fortuitous, and that constancy is supplied by habit formation—would that be a satisfactory interpretation? It is a simple one, inasmuch as it only requires that a male shall alight by chance in a particular place for a few mornings in succession in order that the process may be set in motion. Now an essential condition of habit formation is recurrent repetition; given this repetition and, it is true, any mode of activity is liable to become firmly established. But how can we explain the repetition? Even if we are justified in assuming that the initial visit is purely an accidental occurrence, we cannot presume too far upon the laws of chance and assume that the repetition, at first, is also fortuitous.
So that we come back to the congenital basis, the last of our three propositions. And it will, I think, be admitted that the facts give us some grounds for believing that the securing of the territory has its root in the inherited con-
