366 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. XVI. 



king-crow had evidently, before I noticed him, been watching the myna and, 

 seeing it unearth the worm, the little robber fell upon it with beak and claw. 

 However, he seemed to find the worm more difficult to swallow than to capture. 

 The worm could not have been less than two inches in length and the drongo 

 had hold of it by one end. His efforts to dispose of his wriggling victim were 

 amusing to watch. Presently the worm wriggled itself free and fell. The 

 king-crow swore vigorously and dropped after it, but he had net to descend far, 

 because the luckless worm caught in the petiole of a leaf. The drongo again 

 secured it, took it to a broad branch, and after grappling with it for about a 

 minute swallowed it whole. 



Highway robbery of this description is, I think, not common. In most cases 

 the mynas appear to be on excellent terms with their black neighbour : they 

 strut about quite close to him, and behave as though they were unaware of 

 his presence. I have never seen them make any attempt to mob him. Except 

 upon the occasion just mentioned I have not seen the drongo attack the myna. 

 Such attacks cannot be very frequent, for so courageous a bird as the myna 

 would never tolerate the presence of the king-crow if he frequently committed 

 larceny. 



I believe that the arrangement is merely one of commensalism. The king- 

 crow benefits, hence bis presence. He as a rule does not harm or impede the 

 mynas, for he takes the insects they do not trouble to chase, and, indeed, he 

 is sometimes useful as a sentry, so they tolerate his presence. 



King-crows very frequently use cattle as perches. No sight is commoner 

 in India than that of a king-crow perched on the back of a cow, sufficiently far 

 forward to avoid the swish of the tail. Until recently I was under the im- 

 pression that the drongo utilised the quadruped merely because its back formed 

 a convenient point of vantage whence he could obtain a good view of the 

 surrounding country. I am now inclined to think that the king-crow derives 

 the additional advantage of having the ground beaten for him by the moving 

 cow. The myna uses cattle as beaters ; why then should not the drongo do 

 likewise ? 



I must confess that until recently I had not noticed this commensalism 

 between the king-crow and the mynas, and since I have noticed it I have not 

 been outside Madras, so cannot say whether a similar relationship exists else- 

 where. I am inclined to think it does, and has uot been noticed, because mynas 

 being such very common birds naturalists are apt to pay but scant attention 

 to their doings. Moreover, seen from a distance a king-crow sitting on the 

 grass is easily mistaken for a myna. Again, the present season in Madras has 

 been an exceptionally dry one ; it is therefore possible that the king-crow is 

 more dependent than usual on the insects which frequent the ground. 



I shall be interested to know whether other members of the Bombay 

 Natural History Society have noticed this case of commensalism. 



D. DEWAR, I.C.S. 



Madras, December, 1904. 



