THE HONEY-GUIDES 129 



11 :10 when the male began "victoring" again in a tree below site A. The female 

 was not seen again. 



I then walked up to the male and he flew off and out of sight but two minutes 

 later was "victoring" at a subordinate site in a Kaffir plum tree. I flushed him 

 there and soon heard him at site A, so rushed back and found him perched on top 

 of the honeycomb I had placed there before the female came. ... I was near 

 enough to see his nictitating membranes working. He ate daintily, so probably 

 was not hungry, but sometimes he pecked more lustily at the wax. . . . Then 

 he hopped off the comb and sat on the branch alongside. . . . After 13 minutes 

 there he hopped across to his favorite twig and sat there calmly "victoring" for 

 the next 12 minutes when I flushed him and removed the comb. 



These feeding notes, amplified and corroborated by similar ones 

 made by Ranger and myself, show that feeding is not incompatible 

 with call-post tenacity during the hours when it was not possible to 

 lure the male into guiding behavior. The fact that it will not leave 

 its call post to lead one to a bees' nest suggests, however, that the pull 

 exerted by the call post must be fairly strong. 



Two other copulations were observed at site A, one involving the 

 same male as the first but a different female. Thus, on November 14, 

 I made the following entry in my field notebook. 



Heard male "victoring" while I was still about 700 yards away at 8:4.5 a. m. 

 He was not at the favorite site, but in another tree when I arrived; he came back 

 to A at 9:03 a. m. and gave his series of notes at minute intervals until 10:12, 

 At 10:13 he flew to C and then a subadult bird (subsequently found by its actions 

 to be a female) came to him as he was calling. He flew to her and landed on top 

 of her, but my view was obscured by the foliage; then both flew off together into 

 the dense bush with a series of screeching cries similar to those described by 

 Skead. Ten minutes later the male was back in tree A giving his "victor" calls. 



The third observation was made by Ranger after I had left the 

 eastern Cape Province, and extends the scope of the evidence in a 

 most felicitous manner. The following data are taken from his letter 

 in which he generously gave me the details for incorporation in this 

 account. 



On November 26 I spent 3 hours at the /. indicator call site (A). The details 

 are as foUows. Male at site began to call "victor" when I was some 200 yards off; 

 was not heard before though conditions were favorable. At 10:15 I came in sight 

 of the central call-tree (A). He was in a tree 10 yards lower near the forest 

 (dense bush) margin, uttering vic-tor; below him, moving about and flicking its 

 wings constantly was another I. indicator, a mature female. He continued calling 

 and she moved about on a lower level jerking her wings constantly as before; 

 her movements were jerky . . . He then flew down on to her back and a short 

 effort at treading was made, his wings flitting. She did not oppose this effort in 

 any way, but it was not a success, i. e., copulation did not occur. He parted 

 from her to perch above her and to continue calling vic-tor. She moved about on 

 a lower branch, flicking her wings. She had not uttered any sound. Then, when 

 her position was to one side and lower than his, he flew down on to her back. She 

 received him with not the least resistance, i. e., permitted his action fully. This 

 time copulation was achieved in a most vigorous manner. His head was held 



