AVIAN GENUS CHRYSOCX)CCYX 51 



Dicaeum agile Thick-billed flower-pecker 



Aethopyga siparaja Yellow-backed sunbird 



Arachnothem longirostris Little spider -hunter 



It may be mentioned that Baker (1927, p. 163) considered Cisticola 

 as probably an "abnormal" fosterer, but he accepted the record as an 

 actual occurrence. Its nesting site is certainly different from the 

 arboreal situations used by the other hosts chosen by the violet 

 cuckoo. 

 C. kiaas. 



lOaas's cuckoo is now fauly well known, insofar as many, but 

 casual, observations may be said to constitute an acquaintance with 

 a species. It resembles the didiic, C. caprius, in many ways, and the 

 two are often ecologically sympatric. Like the didric, the IClaas's 

 cuckoo evinces a ^\^de range of choice of passerine hosts.* 



lOaas's cuckoo has been found to parasitize 59 species (80 species 

 and subspecies), 21 of wliich are also known to be victims of the didi'ic. 

 However, aside from species recorded as hosts but a single time for 

 each of these two cuckoos, few of these fosterers are affected equally 

 often by both species of glossy cuckoos. In fact the tawny-flanked 

 longtail, Prinia subjlava, recorded as a host of C. caprius 16 times 

 and of C. klaas 20 times, and the Cabanis weaver, Ploceus intermedius, 

 with 7 records as a host of the didi'ic and 5 as a victim of Klaas's 

 cuckoo, are the only two hosts that appear to be equally parasitized 

 by both cuckoos. The more usual picture seems to be that a bird known 

 to be a frequent victim of one of these parasites may be affected by the 

 other one occasionally. Thus, the masked weaver, Ploceus velatus, has 

 105 records of parasitism by C. caprius, but only a single record by C. 

 klaas. Similarly the red bishop, Euplecies orix, has been noted as a vic- 

 tim of the didi'ic 77 times, of Klaas's cuckoo only twice. The only 

 other hosts with more than a single record as host for each of the two 



^ For pertinent references to published records see: Bannerman 1933, pp. 117- 

 119; Belcher 1930, p. 299; 1949, p. 19; Benson 1940, p. 402; 1946, p. 297; 1953, 

 p. 35; Benson, Brooke, and Vernon 1964, p. 56; Braun 1931, pp. 148-149; 1934, 

 p. 555; Chapin 1953, p. 725; 1954, p. 339; Chubb 1914, p. 63; Erlanger 1905, 

 p. 485; Friedmann 1949a, pp. 139-146; 1949b, p. 517; 1956, pp. 396-399; Grote 

 1924, p. 34; Haagner and Ivy 1906, p. 35; Holman 1947, p. 641; Jackson 1938, 

 pp. 503-504; Jerome 1943, pp. 100, 102; Joubert 1943, p. 5; Mackworth-Praed 

 and Grant 1957, p. 779; Mackatsch 1955, pp. 184-185; Masterson 1953, p. 51; 

 MacLeod, MacLeod, and Murray 1952, pp. 17, 22; Meneghetti 1944, p. 96; 

 Pitman 1957, pp. 3-6; Pringle 1946, pp. 368-369; Pringle 1948, pp. 155-156; 

 Roberts 1939, pp. 18-20; 1940, p. 143; Schmidt 1963, p. 176; Schonwetter 1964, 

 p. 567; Sclater and Moreau 1932, pp. 512-513; 1933, p. 403;Sheppard 1958, pp. 6-8; 

 Skead 1952, p. 12; 1954a, p. 87; Skinner 1929, p. Ill; Sparrow 1936, p. 6; Stoneham 

 1952, p. 7; van Someren 1916, pp. 234, 384, 454; 1922, pp. 53; 1932, p. 277; 1939 

 p. 37; 1956, pp. 160, 358, 440-447; pp. 763-764; Vincent 1946, p. 59; Vincent 

 1934, Williams 1946, p. 138. 



