ing territory is founded. Yet inasmuch as the survival value of the dispositions themselves must have depended upon the success of the process as a whole, it is manifest that peculiar significance must not be attached to just the area occupied, which happens to be so susceptible of observation; other contributory factors must also receive attention, for the process is but an order of relationships in which the various units have each had their share in determining the nature and course of subsequent process, so that, as Dr Stout says, when they were modified, it was modified.
Now the male inherits a disposition which leads it to remain in a restricted area, but the disposition cannot determine the extent of that area. How then are the boundaries fixed? That they are sometimes adhered to with remarkable precision, that they can only be encroached upon at the risk of a conflict—all of this can be observed with little difficulty. But if we regard them as so many lines definitely delimiting an area of which the bird is cognisant, we place the whole behaviour on a different level of mental development, and incidentally alter the complexion of the whole process. It would be a mistake. I think, to do this. Though conscious intention as a factor may enter the situation, there is no necessity for it to do so; there is no necessity, that is to say, for the bird to form a mental image of the area to be occupied and shape its course accordingly. The same result can be obtained without our having
