New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Bird Nests Used to Look More Like Fortresses

The standard cup nest predominates today, but bird nests evolved from a more complex roofed structure

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Which came first, the cup or the dome? Unlike the old chicken-versus-egg conundrum, this question appears to have an answer. A new study suggests that the familiar open-cup style—built by nearly three fourths of today's passerines, or perching birds—is a modification of roofed spherical structures that just a handful of species now make.

Most biologists had theorized that nest shape evolved the other way around, from bowl to dome. Researchers recently tested the hypothesis by overlaying nest-structure data on three different phylogenetic trees, thought to represent the evolutionary relations among 281 Australian passerine species. The team noticed that species with particularly ancient lineages, such as lyrebirds, scrub-birds and New Zealand wrens, still build roofed structures—suggesting that ancestral passerine nests were domed. A statistical analysis of the likelihood that particular nest shapes occurred in ancestors confirmed the hunch: the dome came first.

Cup-shaped nest of a chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina). Credit: Sharon Beals


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers also found that making cup-shaped nests evolved multiple times and in different lineages; 187 of the studied species build them today. The results were detailed in February in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Cups may offer some advantages, such as being easier to build or to abandon if predators approach. “I think most people had assumed that roofed nests evolved from cups, in part because roofed nests are so unusual today,” says co-author J. Jordan Price, a professor of biology at St. Mary's College of Maryland. “This nicely illustrates how the current prevalence of a trait, such as cup nests, does not necessarily indicate the order of events during its evolutionary history.”

The findings could inform how scientists study nest evolution, says Gavin Leighton, an evolutionary biologist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, who was not involved in the study. “I think there will be increased interest in determining the ecological scenarios that select for different nest types,” he says. Seems you can't put all your nests in one basket.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe