126 BULLETIN 2 08, L^'ITED STATES NATIONAL AIUSEUM 



since 11:45 he began calling vic-tor and continued to do so normally 

 until 12:53 when Ranger took dowTi the mounted bird; from then until 

 1 p. m. he called from a nearby tree, when Ranger departed. 



Another observation supplied me by Ranger shows conclusively 

 that even though one male may cling to the same call post day after 

 day, this does not prevent a second male from coming there and 

 calling from it as well, without any sign of antagonism from either 

 bird. The bird regularly found in this call post had a damaged bill 

 which made it easily identifiable through field glasses. On January 18 

 Ranger found this individual (No. 1) and a second adult male (No. 2) 

 perched in the same tree. No. 2 was in an inconspicuous perch 

 under the upper branches and fohage, while No. 1 was in his usual 

 conspicuous perch. Bird No. 2 continued to call his series of vic-tor 

 notes in the usual way and No. 1 merely "looked on," as it were, 

 looking about with the normal, curious, small movements of the 

 head, though undoubtedl}^ hearing and conscious of No. 2's calling. 

 After about 10 minutes bird No. 1 flew over to its main calling tree 

 while No. 2 remained where he was. No. 1 then began to call, followed 

 by No. 2. Thus, there was alternate calling, but sometimes simulta- 

 neous and overlapping calling. The point of interest is that the two 

 birds were calling from the one stud site. There was no suggestion 

 that one answered the other; such a condition was not to be expected, 

 and no such thing exists between males. On the contrary, in this 

 case we have one male (No. 1), evidently established at the stud site 

 for some time, sho\\'ing no sign of any territorial "jealousy" at the 

 presence of another calling male but merely exliibiting what may be 

 considered nothing more than normal curiosity. The second male 

 may or may not have established himself at this stud site, but the 

 evidence indicates that the males of the neighborhood use the one 

 stud post (or site). Actually, this fits in with the fact that Ranger 

 knew of one such stud post in almost daily occupancy for at least 20 

 years — longer than we have any reason to think a honey-guide may 

 live — and with the fact (described on p. 124) that Williams once found 

 two males giving a courtship display in the same tree to the same 

 hen simultaneously. It would be strange indeed if only one male in 

 a sizable area were established on a call post and the others merely 

 wandered about with no definite opportunity to attract the hens. 



At the time when Ranger, Skead, and I made the observations of 

 which the above statement is a brief summary, these were facts 

 unrecorded in the literature. Subsequent questioning has brought out 

 that several observers in South Africa and in Rhodesia had noticed 

 but had not grasped the significance of the tendency of male greater 

 honey-guides to give their vic-tor notes day afer day from the same 

 spot. These scattered, incomplete observations serve to corroborate 



