



Produced by sp1nd, Tom Cosmas and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)









Transcriber Notes


Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by =equal signs=.




[Illustration: EGGS.

  1. Goldfinch.  2. Magpie.  3. Bullfinch.  4. Starling.
  5. Chaffinch.  6. Raven.  7. Linnet.  8. Rook.  9. Wren.
]




  Birds' Nests, Eggs
  and Egg-Collecting

  By R. Kearton, F.Z.S.

  Author of "With Nature and a Camera," "British
  Birds' Nests," "Wild Life at Home," etc. etc.

  _Illustrated with 22 Coloured Plates_


  [Illustration]


    Cassell and Company, Limited
    London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne
    1913


First printed _February 1890_. _Reprinted June 1890, May 1893._ New
and Enlarged Edition _January 1896_. _Reprinted June 1896, November
1898, July 1900, March 1902, September 1903, July 1905, December 1907,
January 1913._

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




PREFACE


The very kindly reception by the press, and a steady public
appreciation, have led to this endeavour to make my little book
more complete, by preparing an Enlarged Edition, including all
British-breeding birds that have now any reasonable claim for
treatment. The work deals with a number of more or less familiar winter
visitors that do not stay to breed with us; however, this is perhaps an
advantage nowadays, when we all travel much and far.

As mentioned in the preface to the first Edition, this book is not
intended to encourage the useless collecting of birds' eggs from a mere
_bric-a-brac_ motive, but to aid the youthful naturalist in the study
of one of the most interesting phases of bird life. It is to be hoped
that the Act of Parliament empowering County Councils to protect either
the eggs of certain birds, or those of all birds breeding within a
given area, will be of great benefit to many of our feathered friends.

Besides a pretty extensive experience, I have, in the preparation of
this work, sought the aid of such excellent authorities as Yarrel
(fourth Edition), Seebohm, Dixon, and others, to all of whom I
gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness.

                                                     R. KEARTON.

  Boreham Wood, Elstree, Herts,
  1896.


                         Works by R. KEARTON,
                           F.Z.S., F.R.P.S.


                       KEARTON'S NATURE PICTURES

                    THE FAIRYLAND OF LIVING THINGS

                         BRITISH BIRDS' NESTS

                           OUR BIRD FRIENDS

                        NATURE'S CAROL SINGERS

                          WILD NATURE'S WAYS

                       WITH NATURE AND A CAMERA

                         PICTURES FROM NATURE

                           WILD LIFE AT HOME

                     THE ADVENTURES OF COCK ROBIN
                             AND HIS MATE

                     THE ADVENTURES OF JACK RABBIT

                   STRANGE ADVENTURES IN DICKY-BIRD
                                 LAND


             Cassell and Company, Ltd., London, New York,
                         Toronto and Melbourne




BIRDS' NESTS, EGGS, AND EGG-COLLECTING




INTRODUCTION.


=The Problem of Preservation.=--As a rule the first subject to which
the young naturalist turns his attention is the most interesting one
within his reach, and that subject is undoubtedly found in bird-life;
particularly that portion of it which concerns the nests, eggs, young,
and various modes of nidification, for this is really the kernel of
ornithology. Its details teach him the utility of systematic study and
close observation, two important points in all matters of scientific
research.

It is my intention in the following pages to furnish as full and
interesting particulars on Oology, which may fairly be entitled to the
dignity of a science, as can be found, or is likely to be required, in
any popular treatise of its modest compass.

This particular branch of natural history has been until lately but
indifferently studied--in fact, considered unworthy of higher attention
than that which could be bestowed upon it by schoolboys. People have
been content to know that the wonderful architecture and mechanism of
a bird's nest was the outcome of a force vaguely known as _instinct_,
without taking the trouble to discover its workings, extent, or limits.

Instinct is an extremely difficult power to define, and whether it be
described as "hereditary habit," or simply accepted as an unknown law
of Nature blindly followed by its possessor, it cannot be denied that
it is the outcome of conditions, and always amenable to them. If the
word mystery were often substituted for instinct, it would not be at
all out of place, for it means quite as much. It is more honest to
acknowledge our ignorance than to fence it round by speculative theory
or cover it by almost meaningless phrases. Survival of the fittest
is undoubtedly Nature's great law. With this end in view she governs
and regulates the actions of birds in exactly the same way as she
controls the colour and character of their plumage, shape, size, tint,
and number of their eggs, first movements of their young, and other
peculiarities we do not understand.

If we grant that birds possess highly-developed imitative faculties
and tenacious memories, with a discriminating power which enables them
to adapt certain habits of life to surrounding conditions, even this
fails to explain a great deal. Supposing it is the secret of their
beautiful nest-building, the house sparrow adopting trees to nest in
where the houses are built of brick and lack crevices, or the falcon
deserting its usual high inaccessible crag and nesting on the ground;
it cannot possibly account for a young duck taking the water directly
it has left the shell, or the habit of young plovers, snipes, grouse,
and other birds crouching flat when danger is overhead even as soon as
they are hatched. A stronger point still is migration, for birds cannot
return to their old haunts by a memory of landmarks, as pigeons do even
in their longest flights, for they fly over immense bodies of water
and traverse vast tracts of land by night, on wings the length and
strength of which have been specially developed for such long flights.
Some fly across great stretches of country, yet are never seen except
at the points from which they start and finish their flight. Neither
can these journeys be performed always under the guidance of leaders,
for all migratory birds do not travel in flocks.

I will endeavour to point out how Nature has solved the problem
of preservation; and it is equally interesting whether by the
self-governed action of the bird, or the blind following of an impulse
known only as instinct. Because we are unable to find any protective
colouration in the plumage of a bird, its eggs or nest, we must
not conclude that such peculiarity is a mere accident or useless
decoration, for it either serves some wise end unknown to us, or has
done so in far past ages, and is perpetuated because its possession is
not distinctly harmful, and may at some future date be again called
into requisition against danger. The extinction of nearly all birds
whose existence is reasonably well-known has not been due to natural
causes, but to man or the influence his civilisation has introduced.
Nature never made such a mistake as the introduction of rabbits and
sparrows into Australia. They are two potent forces turned loose into
practically unrestricted space, without any of their natural limiting
influences.

=Protective Colouring of Birds.=--The protective colour of the plumage
of certain birds is the great source of their safety during incubation.
For instance, birds which nidificate on the ground, such as Black
and Red Grouse, Pheasants, Partridges, and Sandpipers, all subject
to the depredations of winged and creeping enemies, are preserved by
the modification of their tints. The same means of security attend
their eggs and downy young, even the extreme simplicity of their nests
aiding the escape of detection. Birds whose down has protected them
during the early part of their history, become aware of the dangers
which threaten a more conspicuous plumage, which is a marvellous thing,
whether acquired by reasoning or instinct. This is proved by the action
of birds of the same order. The Golden Plover, with plumage in harmony
with the surroundings of her nest (her feathers being still further
subdued in colour during the breeding season), sits much closer than
the Green Plover, although a shyer bird, with eggs possessing the
same protective qualities. The Green Plover knows her plumage is much
more conspicuous than her eggs, and quietly slips away before danger
approaches half so near as the golden plover will allow it.

I am surprised to find so great an authority as Darwin assert that "the
species which represent each other in distinct countries will almost
always have been exposed to different conditions, but we can hardly
attribute to this action the modification of the plumage in the males
alone, seeing that the females and the young, though similarly exposed,
have not been affected."

Possibly such may be the case where no protective modification is
necessary in the female or young; but what about the fact that female
Red Grouse differ much in the colour of their plumage, according to the
conditions under which they live, though the males are left totally
unaffected? Instance the female Grouse, known as the "Moss-hen," always
found on the highest and most exposed situations where there is little
cover, consequently great need of harmonising colours: a strong point,
I venture to assert, in favour of protective utility.

Moulting has been rendered subject to the law of preservation in a
remarkable degree, for where birds are open to periodical changes of
surrounding conditions which materially affect their existence, they
are provided with an extra moult. For example, the Ptarmigan's plumage
is pure white for winter snow, and brown for summer heather.

The stoat's fur undergoes a similar change of colour; and more
marvellous still, to pursue the preservation argument into the water
world, take a common trout, and chase him up and down a shallow pool
until he has become thoroughly scared, and it will be found that
wherever he rests for a few seconds his colour will change in obedience
to that of the bed of the stream directly beneath him; so much so that
I have known one half of a trout very dark and the other half very
light coloured, correspondingly with objects beneath and around him.

Again, the same high authority points out that "the feathers of young
birds are in male and female similar to the female parent when she is
of a dull colour, but like the male when he is dull and the female
bright; also, when both parents are of a conspicuously bright colour
the young take a dull colour of their own"--for example, Robins. He
infers that these colours represent those of far distant progenitors;
but as safety lies in these modified tints, and preservation being
Nature's chief problem, it is more reasonable to suppose that Nature
lends this means of protection whilst the bird is in its most helpless
condition, for an evolution that tends to increase dangerously
conspicuous colours would only seem to invite extinction.

In another place he says "it deserves especial attention that brilliant
colours have been transferred much more rarely than other tints." Yes,
simply because they are generally a source of danger to the possessor.

Three familiar instances of special modifications in the plumage
of the female are to be found in the black grouse, pheasant, and
blackbird, all nidificating in situations more or less fraught with
danger. Remarkable again is the fact that where the female is more
conspicuously marked than the male the latter takes upon himself the
duties of incubation entirely, or renders a great deal of aid, which
is strong proof that dull subdued colours have been adopted for the
preservation of the young in their several stages of helplessness.

=Protective Construction of Nests.=--It is surprising again to find
Darwin, in arguing that few British birds build covered nests to
protect themselves against the conspicuousness of their own colours,
citing the Dipper as an instance of this. But what about the white
breast of this bird, which marks it out at long distances against
the dark rock or water? Again, her pure white eggs are manifestly a
source of danger, more conspicuous even than the bird. It must not be
supposed I overlook another important feature in the covered nest of
this bird, which is, however, subservient to the bird's desire to hide
her white plumage and eggs, which renders it equally preservative in
character. The bird generally builds near a waterfall, often quite
behind, undoubtedly for the safety this situation affords, and she is
not only obliged to construct a covered nest, but one which must keep
out the constant dripping of water percolating through fissures in the
rock. The construction of this nest even cuts off the chance of a stray
splash of water finding its way to the eggs or young during the parent
bird's absence, by the peculiarly ingenious entrance she makes to her
little home.

Still further, where birds are conspicuous in colour they either build
covered nests, or place them in such situations as afford safety, and
are thus equivalent. For instance, the Woodpecker, Kingfisher, and
Magpie, the two former having a double object in the selection of a
situation, firstly their own eminently brilliant colours, and secondly
their pure white eggs. The latter building a covered nest of such
materials as thorns, seems to point to a strategic planning against the
immorality of the family to which he belongs.

=Periods of Incubation and their Utility.=--The Duck family all lay
eggs white, or nearly approaching it, and take the precaution to cover
them carefully on leaving the nest.

Some naturalists have been of opinion that this is to prevent an undue
escape of the heat generated by the parent; however, I am unable to
find any observations to prove that these birds leave their eggs for
feeding purposes longer than any others that hatch their young in
three weeks. Neither does it appear that they transmit heat better or
worse than birds of entirely different habits, for it takes a Fowl
four weeks to hatch a Duck's egg, and a Duck will on the other hand
hatch a Fowl's in the normal time, three weeks. It appears that the
period of incubation is regulated with a great amount of precision by
the contemplated habits of life, the difficulties to be overcome, and
dangers to be endured, as the following facts show:--

A Pigeon hatches its young out in sixteen days, and by a special
process and careful assiduity feeds them until they are almost full
grown. A Fowl, though not capable of feeding her young in the same way,
possesses the power of defending her offspring, finding and selecting
suitable food, and attending to their education generally in a higher
degree than the Duck can bestow on her progeny, which take four weeks
to hatch.

To still further illustrate this wonderful regulating principle,
let us diverge for a moment from the eggs of birds to those of
fish, where we find things adapted with incredible precision to the
surrounding conditions of existence. I have noticed that trout living
and being obliged to deposit their ova in a stream subject to great
variations of temperature, spawn much earlier than trout in a stream
preserving a comparatively even temperature. The condition of the
latter in comparison with the former showed unmistakably that the
difference of food supply did not account for it, and as the fry in
both streams appeared about the same time in the spring, and exhibited
no appreciable difference in size or strength during the summer, the
natural conclusion to be arrived at is that the time required for
hatching in each stream is contemplated and provided against in some
mysterious way.

=Mechanical Construction of Eggs.=--We now come to another phase of the
protective principle, even more remarkable than those we have already
discussed, and equally useful. This is in the mechanical construction
of eggs to suit their situation and surrounding conditions. What an
admirable provision Nature has shown in placing the axis of a bird's
egg just where it will prevent it rolling off a flat surface, such as a
ledge of rock, when moved by the terrible gusts of wind that sweep over
high latitudes, or perhaps roughly moved by the parent bird suddenly
fluttering off when scared.

Take, for example, the egg of the Guillemot. This is so wonderfully
constructed that if moved it will not roll away like a marble or
billiard-ball, but simply spins round on its axis, in the same way
as a screw or top, showing a wonderful adaptability to the exposed
situation chosen by this bird for incubation.

Birds which make round, cup-shaped nests or incubate in holes, such
as the Owl and Kingfisher, for instance, lay round eggs, which run no
risk of rolling away and being smashed. Their shape also facilitates
alteration of position of the parent bird to secure an equal
distribution of warmth and ventilation.

Were the Guillemot and either of the latter birds to change nesting
situations for a while, it is probable a speedy extermination of the
species which adopted the flat rock for the round egg would soon take
place, affording a beautiful illustration of the power that is also
guiding the action of birds under the mysterious name of instinct. It
is an unknown and unknowable power, yet its workings are as undeniable
as its results.

As a further illustration, let us take the eggs of the Golden and Green
Plovers, and consider for a moment their size, shape, number, and
colour.

All these qualities serve some well-defined and demonstrably useful
end. Firstly, their size is abnormally large compared with that of the
layer, but this is a provision which supplies the necessary size and
strength of the young bird to enable it to cope with the surrounding
conditions of its first days of self-feeding and locomotion amongst
coarse grass and other obstacles.

Secondly, the shape of the egg serves to economise space, an important
