Viewing page 115 of 208

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Mixed Diglomini, May 11, 1965, VIII       26
overlapping of territories.
Presumably there is a simple explanation of this general rule or correlation.  Presumably it is advantageous for species in open areas to be dispersed and/or advantageous for species in areas with dense vegetation to be close together.  (It may be significant that all the [[underlined]] Courostrum [[/underlined]] species which are obligate commensals of mixed [[?]] occur in forest and/or relatively thick scrub.)  It is easy to imagine various advantages and disadvantages of all types of Diglamine noval organizatious; but it difficult to decide which are really important.  Perhaps food sources are less evenly distributed in open areas than in areas of dense vegetation? If no, it might be even more advantageous for an individual to repell all possible competitors in open areas than in areas of dense vegetation favors aggregation of individuals as protection against predators (aide my earlier remarks on the advantages of forming mixed flodes).
I [[underlined]] think [[/underlined]] that this general rule does not apply in comparisons between populations of different [underlined]] regions [[/underlined]]. Surely the fighting individuals at the Paramo de Quasca and the mountain above Palia were mas dense vegetation as many of the non-fighting individuals near Quito? And surely the almost completely segregated individuals in the Yougas of La Paz were in as dense vegetation as any Diglomini I have ever seen?
[[underlined]] Nevertheless [[/underlined]] , if the differing social organizations of the "typical" (i.e. non-commensal) Diglomini are adaptations to obtain the most advantageous population density, and of the differing social organizations of tanagers, frudies, whutertarts, et., are condated with frontier couditious and/or ability to "hop" between inlands, then this would certainly ex