to maintain both themselves and their families, it is clear that the area these Reed-Buntings occupied was in excess of that which they would have required if they had been the sole inhabitants. And such often appears to be the case. Many a Warbler allocates to itself a space of ground more than sufficient to supply it with all that it needs; so, too, does the Finch, or the Pipit, or the Falcon—if we take no account of kindred species. Thus there is reason to believe that, by limiting the number of individuals in a given locality, this apparently wasteful expanse of territory is serviceable in that it provides against the pressure of the bird population upon the available means of support becoming too great. But though a reduction in the numerical standing of the different species would certainly follow from any increase in the area occupied by the respective individuals, and with even greater certainty would place them in a more secure position as regards their supply of food, yet, when we remember how large a number are dependent upon a supply of insect life for their young, we can understand that it would not alone be a sufficient safeguard against the dangers attendant upon overcrowding. It is here. I believe, that we shall find the true explanation of the hostility; it roughly insures that the number of pairs in any given area does not exceed the available means of support, and indeed it is difficult to imagine how such uniformity of distribution as would free the young from the risk of
Page:Territory in Bird Life by Henry Eliot Howard (London, John Murray edition).djvu/314
246
WARFARE BETWEEN DIFFERENT SPECIES
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Territory_in_Bird_Life_by_Henry_Eliot_Howard_%28London%2C_John_Murray_edition%29.djvu/page314-1024px-Territory_in_Bird_Life_by_Henry_Eliot_Howard_%28London%2C_John_Murray_edition%29.djvu.jpg)