THE HONEY-GUIDES 145 



western Nigeria, in February. One nest contained two blue eggs of the 

 host; the other had three, in addition to the white one of the honey- 

 guide. This record refers to the Nigerian race, Phoeniculus purpureus 

 guineensis (Reichenow) .^* 



Rhinopomastus cyanomelas cyanomelas (Vieillot). South African scimitar-bill. 



Falcinellus cyanomelas Vieillot, Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, vol. 

 28, p. 165, 1819. (Namaqualand.) 



One record is known to me, one that fortimately is very fully im- 

 plemented with observational data. Plowes (1948) is the discoverer 

 and recorder of this case, and his account is so full of interest that it 

 is given here in its original wording. 



On 24 November, 1946, wliile on the banks of the Vaal River at Bloemhof, 

 Transvaal, I saw a Scimitar-bill Hoopoe {Rhinopomastus c. cyanomelas) fly from 

 an old Barbet nest. This was situated 5 feet from the ground in a species of Rhus 

 which grows in the thick bush lining the river. The nest hole was about 9" 

 deep, and on the padding of hair and fur at the bottom were the following: one 

 whole, but cracked, Scimitar-bill egg; the thin end of a second Scimitar-biU egg; 

 two whole, but cracked white eggs; the two halves of a third white egg which had 

 just hatched; and a Honeyguide chick about one day old. 



The Scimitar-biU eggs are . . . blue . . . , are glossy, and have pores spaced 

 about 1 mm. apart. The half egg had been broken whilst still fresh and the whole 

 egg had had its development arrested due to the cracking of the shell. The 

 broken egg measured about 16 mm. in width whilst the whole one was 22.0 bj' 

 15.3 mm. 



The broken halves of the Honeyguide egg fitted together almost perfectly, 

 and it now measures 21.7 by 17.4 mm. The other two eggs measure 24.0 by 17.6 

 and 24.3 by 18.8 mm. respectively. These two eggs had failed to develop, so 

 that the cracking presumably took place soon after they were laid. All three 

 eggs were discoloured by soiling in the nest, although originally white, with prac- 

 tically no gloss, and with small deep pores irregularly spaced about 1-2 mm. apart. 

 They were more or less equally rounded at either end. It would appear from the 

 varying sizes that the eggs were not all laid by one bird . . . Whether the cracks 

 in the two whole Honeyguide eggs were the work of the last Honeyguide to lay 

 in the nest or were the result of the Scimitar-bill damaging the eggs with its 

 claws, is not known, but the latter eventuality seems the more probable, as 

 there were no holes comparable with peck marks. The whole Scimitar-biU egg 

 appears to have been damaged in a like manner, but the broken one is more 

 probably the work of a Honeyguide. The smaU size of the Scimitar-biU clutch 

 would appear to be due to the Honeyguides removing the other eggs. 



That the white eggs in the nest belong to the Honeyguide is beyond question, 

 for the chick that hatched from the one egg was without doubt a Honeyguide 

 chick. It has zygodactylous feet and the short stout bill was armed at the tips 

 with tiny needle-sharp transparent yellowish hooks, the upper fitting to the left 

 of the lower when the bill is closed. The translucent flesh-coloured skin was 

 devoid of all trace of feathers; it was totally blind and more or less helpless. 



Although in five years of bird watching in the district I have never seen any 

 species other than the Greater Honeyguide {Indicator indicator), I felt it advisable 



2^ Irrisor erythrorhynchus guineensis Reichenow, Ornith. Monatsb., vol. 10, p. 

 78, 1902. (Portuguese Guinea to Niger.) 



