Mr Taverner, arguing on these lines (51), shows that competition would be originated in areas containing the earliest breeders, and be severest in the most productive districts. Weaker and later breeders would be driven out or prevented from colonizing by the stronger and earlier species, and the evicted ones would encroach on others, forcing them in turn to trespass on a wider circle of species. He then argues how the gradual recession of the glacial ice would increase the possible northward breeding area, and cause longer migration, and that this migration would delay breeding and conversely delayed breeding would assist the evolution of migration. But the lengthening of the journey might surely be occasioned in another way, and the evolution of migration assisted apart from any glacial influences. Each successive increase of the length of the journey taken by the stronger and more go-ahead individuals, leading them in advance of the bulk of southward moving and competing birds, would be a distinct advantage to the individual and consequently to the species. The pioneer would arrive, like the slower movers, in a land already peopled with an avian population, but it would not have its own fellows to add to the stress of competition; it would be ahead of the greatest struggle. So the fittest would mould for the species the most suitable journey both in distance and route, and the laggards would gradually fall out of the competition. Dr Wallace, without destroying these arguments, has shown that the survival of the fittest has a powerful influence. Those birds which do not leave the breeding area at the proper season will suffer and ultimately become extinct, and the same will happen to those which fail to leave the winter quarters when it would be a distinct advantage to the species to move into lands better suited for reproduction.