Because the results of these time studies are unexpected and startling, I have sought to explore other alternative explanations and none appears to be tenable. For example, the notion that the varying flight speeds of birds might operate in some way to produce a cumulative effect as the night progresses must be rejected on close analysis. If birds of varying flight speeds are continuously and evenly distributed in space, a continuous and even flow would result all along their line of flight. If they are haphazardly distributed in space, a correspondingly haphazard density pattern would be expected. Another explanation might be sought in the purely mathematical effects of the method itself. The computational procedure assumes that the effective area of the sample is extremely large when the moon is low, a condition that usually obtains in the early hours of the evening in the days surrounding the full moon. Actually no tests have yet been conducted to ascertain how far away a silhouette of a small bird can be seen as it passes before the moon. Consequently, it is possible that some birds are missed under these conditions and that the effective field of visibility is considerably smaller than the computed field of visibility. The tendency, therefore, may be to minimize the densities in such situations more than is justified. However, in many, if not most, cases, the plotting of the actual number of birds seen, devoid of any mathematical procedures, results in an ascending and descending curve. [Illustration: FIG. 29. Various types of density-time curves. (A) Near typical, Ottumwa, April 22-23; (B) random fluctuation, Stillwater, April 23-24; (C) bimodal, Knoxville, April 22-23; (D) sustained peak, Ottumwa, April 21-22; (E) early peak, Oak Grove, May 21-22; (F) late peak, Memphis, April 23-24.] A third hypothesis proposes that all birds take wing at nearly the same time, gradually increase altitude until they reach the mid-point of their night's journey, and then begin a similarly slow descent. Since the field of observation of the telescope is conical, it is assumed that the higher the birds arise into the sky the more they increase their chances of being seen. According to this view, the changes in the density curve represent changes in the opportunity to see birds rather than an increase or decrease in the actual number of migrants in the air. Although measurements of flight altitude at various hours of the night have not been made in sufficient number to subject this idea to direct test, it is hardly worthy of serious consideration. The fallacy in the hypothesis is that the cone of observation itself would be rising with the rising birds so that actually the greatest proportion of birds flying would still be seen when the field of observation is in the supine position of early evening.