THE HONEY-GUIDES 205 



and I suspect it to be that of Indicator minor." Benson (1951, p. 91) 

 later suggested that the egg might have been laid by Prodotiscus 

 insignis, while still later (1952b, p. 151) he considers that /. minor 

 may have been responsible, but from his wording it appears that he 

 had in mind to say /. exilis meliphilus. In his latest publication 

 (1953, p. 45) he lists Bennett's woodpecker as a host of /. exilis 

 meliphilus without further comment. 



At Entebbe, Uganda, Captain Pitman saw a lesser honey-guide 

 being chased repeatedly by a pair of gray woodpeckers {Meso'picus 

 goertae) from their breeding tree. This species of woodpecker is 

 not yet recorded as a host of this honey-guide. 



The early statements of the Verreaux brothers as to the lesser 

 honey-guide parasitizing puff-backed shrikes, bulbuls, orioles, etc., 

 are not to be taken seriously. 



Nest Life and Development 



The following account is based on two main sources — Skeads' 

 published observations (1951, pp. 53-55) and Ranger's more recent 

 ones (not yet published at the time of the present writing). Both 

 were made in the eastern Cape Province — Skead's near Grahamstown, 

 and Ranger's near Kei Road. In both cases the hosts Avere black- 

 collared barbets. In the nest watched by Skead there were originally 

 three eggs of the host and one of the parasite; in the one described 

 by Ranger there were three eggs of the host and two of the honey- 

 guide. In the former nest aU four eggs hatched within a period of 

 12 to 24 hours; in the latter nest, one honey-guide egg hatched, 

 foUowed two days later by the hatching of one of the barbet's eggs, 

 while the other eggs did not hatch at all. Skead was unable to 

 examine the young honey-guide for the first six days after it hatched 

 as one of the pair of barbets was always on guard in the nest, but 

 Ranger was able to make daily notes from the second day onwards. 



As will be noted at the proper places, the two accounts do not agree 

 in all particulars. Because no further data are available both are 

 discussed, but on the whole it appears that Ranger had more detailed 

 evidence on these points of difference than did Skead. 



The actual hatching of a honey-guide's egg has not yet been watched. 

 In fact, the only description of a day-old bird is Skead's statement to 

 the effect that it was blind, naked, and pinkish. \'Vliile there is no 

 reason to doubt this (except for the color, which Ranger found to be 

 whitish rather than pink in a 2-day-old bird), it should be noted that 

 Skead's description was based on only slight exammation of a bird 

 in a deep nest hole seen with a mirror and a small light. It would 

 seem that Ranger's more detailed description of a 2-day-old bird 



