Lovebird Nesting Behaviors — Genetics vs. Learned Behavior
GED Science Practice — Hypothesis testing, inference & scientific reasoning
Read the passage
Various species of birds from the genus Agapornis possess differing behaviors. These behaviors differ in a way that can be used to infer how the species are related and how they have evolved over time.
For example, the three lovebird species considered to be the most primitive all build simple nests in preexisting cavities. The three middle species all build elaborate nests with tops, and one even digs out a cavity for the nest. The four modern species build cuplike nests. These nests are more complex than those built by the primitive species but less complex than those built by the middle species.
William Dilger conducted an investigation to show that the nest-building behaviors of these birds were genetic rather than learned behaviors. In his investigation, Dilger used two different species of lovebird that readily mate with each other — Fischer's lovebird and the peach-faced lovebird. Fischer's lovebird is a species of modern lovebird while the peach-faced lovebird is a slightly more primitive species.
Fischer's lovebird carries small pieces of nesting material in its beak. The small size of the nesting material is the reason for the simpler cuplike nests of Fischer's lovebird. The peach-faced lovebird cuts long strips of nesting material, which is then tucked into the feathers on the back of the bird. These long strips of nesting material will often fall out of the bird's feathers. However, the long strips of material allow the peach-faced lovebird to build an elaborate nest.
The hybrid offspring of these two species has difficulty building nests. The hybrid offspring will cut long strips of material like its peach-faced parent. However, the hybrid offspring will attempt to carry the material in its beak and have difficulty flying. If it does attempt to place the material in the feathers of its back, the material falls out because the bird does not properly secure the material in its feathers.
Lovebird nesting behaviors — animated diagram
The three species compared — primitive (simple nest), Fischer's (cuplike, beak-carry), peach-faced (elaborate, feather-tuck), and the confused hybrid
GED questions from this passage
Q1: Which hypothesis was Dilger testing in his experiment?
Q2: According to the passage, which statement about hybrid lovebirds is true?
Three types of lovebirds — from primitive to modern
| Type | Nest complexity | How they carry material | Nest description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primitive species (3 species) |
Simple | — | Simple nests in preexisting cavities — no construction needed |
| Middle species (3 species) |
Most complex | Tuck into feathers | Elaborate nests with tops; one digs its own cavity |
| Fischer's lovebird (modern) |
Moderate — cuplike | Carries in beak | Cuplike nests; more complex than primitive, less than middle |
| Peach-faced lovebird (slightly primitive) |
More elaborate | Tucks into back feathers | Elaborate nests built from long strips; strips often fall out during transport |
| Hybrid offspring | Cannot build properly | Mixed/confused | Cuts long strips (like peach-faced) but tries to carry in beak (like Fischer's); material falls out |
Nest complexity over evolutionary time
Nest complexity increases from primitive → middle species. Modern species (Fischer's) have moderate complexity. Peach-faced bridges primitive and modern.
Dilger's experiment — how it works
Dilger selected Fischer's lovebird (modern, beak-carry) and peach-faced lovebird (slightly primitive, feather-tuck). These two species readily mate with each other.
Dilger observed how the hybrid offspring handled nesting material — without teaching or training it. This is key: if behavior were learned, the hybrid would choose one parent's method. If genetic, it would show a mix.
The hybrid cut long strips (peach-faced behavior) but tried to carry them in its beak (Fischer's behavior). It also attempted to tuck material into its feathers but failed to secure it. Both behaviors appeared in the same bird — a genetic mixture.
The hybrid showed a mixture of both parents' behaviors — supporting the hypothesis that nest-building behavior is genetic, not learned. If it were learned, the hybrid would have adopted one consistent method.
Why "genetic" vs. "learned" matters for the hypothesis
Understanding hypothesis structure
A scientific hypothesis follows the "If…then…" structure:
Why the other hypothesis choices are wrong
This has the hypothesis backwards — it uses the OUTCOME (mixture of behaviors) as the "if" condition instead of the cause. Also, the passage already tells us both species are in the genus Agapornis, so this is not what Dilger needed to test.
This is about evolutionary relatedness (which species is closer to modern lovebirds), not about whether behavior is genetic. Dilger's investigation was about the genetic vs. learned nature of behavior — not about classifying species.
This is a trap — it sounds similar to the correct answer. But the "if" condition here is whether the species CAN INTERBREED, not whether behavior is genetic. The ability to interbreed was already known (they "readily mate with each other") — that wasn't what Dilger was testing. The point is that IF behavior is GENETIC, THEN interbreeding would produce a behavioral mixture.
Q1 — Dilger's hypothesis
This is the correct hypothesis because: (1) the passage says Dilger wanted to show nest-building is genetic rather than learned — so "behavior is genetic" is the IF condition. (2) If genes from both parents are inherited, the predicted outcome (THEN) is that both parents' behaviors appear in the hybrid — a mixture. This perfectly matches the structure of Dilger's investigation.
Backwards — the mixture of behaviors is the predicted OUTCOME (THEN), not the starting condition (IF). Also, both species being in Agapornis was already established in the passage.
This is about species classification — not about whether behavior is genetic vs. learned. It's a completely different question from what Dilger was testing.
The ability to interbreed was already known and is not what Dilger tested. The key condition is whether behavior is GENETIC — that is what causes the predicted behavioral mixture in hybrids.
Q2 — What is true about hybrid lovebirds?
This is true of lovebirds in general (the passage's first sentence says behaviors "can be used to infer how the species are related"), but it is a statement about ALL lovebirds — not specifically about hybrid lovebirds, which is what the question asks about.
This directly contradicts the passage and Dilger's conclusion. The entire point of the experiment is that the behavior is GENETIC, not learned. The hybrid behaves as a genetic mixture without being taught.
The passage explicitly states: the hybrid cuts long strips (peach-faced behavior) AND attempts to carry in its beak (Fischer's behavior) AND tries to tuck material into its feathers (peach-faced behavior). Multiple behaviors from both parents appear in the same bird — a mixture. This is confirmed directly by the passage's last paragraph.
The passage says the hybrid has DIFFICULTY building nests — it cannot build properly. It does not build complex nests. And small pieces are associated with Fischer's (the modern, simpler cuplike nest) — the hybrid actually cuts LONG strips like the peach-faced parent.
