Relationship to a territory within the interrelated whole of a bird's life serves more than one purpose, and not always the same purpose in the case of every species. We have only to glance at the life-histories of divergent forms to see that the territory has been gradually adjusted to suit their respective needs--limited in size here, expanded there, to meet new conditions as they arose. Now some may think that the theory would be more likely to be true if the territory had but one purpose to fulfil, and that one the same for every species; and they may see nothing but weakness in the multiplication of ways in which I shall suggest it may be serviceable. But such an objection, if it were raised, would arise from a mistaken conception, a conception which, instead of starting with a relationship and working up to the "territory," sees in the "territory" something of the bird's own selection and thence works back to its origin. Holding the view that it is nothing but a term in a complex relationship which has gradually become interwoven in the history of the individual, I see no reason why the fact of its serving a double or a treble purpose should not be a stronger argument for its survival. I now propose to examine the various ways in which the territory may have been of use in furthering the life of the individual, and the circumstances in the inorganic world which have helped to determine its survival. The purpose that it serves depends largely upon the conditions in the external environment--the climate, the supply of food, the supply of breeding-stations, and the presence of enemies. Hence its purpose varies with varying conditions of existence. But before we proceed to examine the particular ways in which it has been modified to suit the needs of particular classes of species, and the reason for such modifications, we must inquire whether there is not some way in which it has been serviceable alike to every species, or at least to a large majority of them.