210 
Birds of Celebes: Cuculidae. 
Ihe correspondence in habits between Eudynanus and Cuculus is further 
displayed by the circnmstance that the young Crows, which have the misfortune 
to find themselves in the same nest with the Eudynamis, are sometimes ejected, 
probably , as Mr. Hiime says, “by the young Cuckoo; I have found the latter 
in a nest with three young Crows, all freshly hatched, and a week later have 
found the young Crows “missing” and the young Cuckoo thriving”. Mr. Hume 
was of opinion that the Crows’ eggs were not destroyed by the mother Cuckoo; 
Colonel Butler, on the other hand, says, “when the hen birds lays she often 
turns some of the Crow’s eggs out of the nest, as I have several times examined 
Crows nests and found three or four eggs one day, and on examining them a. 
day or two later have found some of the Crows’ eggs missing and Coels’ eggs 
in their place”. There is some reason to suppose that the Common Cuckoo, 
C. canorus, sometimes turns out one or more of the foster-parent’s eggs (Newton, 
Diet. 121). 
Capt. Hutton’s observations on the old Cuculus intermedius feeding a young 
one after leaving the nest have already been quoted from Hume’s great work; 
so, too, as has already been indicated, in the case of the present genus Hume 
has a similar observation : “I have never seen Crows feeding fully fledged Coels 
out of the nest, whereas I have repeatedly watched adult female Coels feeding- 
young ones of their own species” (Nests and Eggs 1891, II, 393). There is, 
according to Prof. Newton, no evidence worthy of consideration that the female 
of C. canorus takes any interest “in the future welfare of the egg she has 
foisted upon her victim, or of its product”; the observations of Mr. Hume and 
Capt. Hutton, nevertheless, render it certain that two Cuckoos at least, and we 
suspect all parasitic birds, are not totally devoid of sympathetic instincts for 
the wants of young members of their own species; though, whether the indivi- 
duals observed looking after the young Cuckoos were their identical mothers or 
not, there it no evidence to show. 
70. EUDYNAMIS MINDANENSIS (L.). 
Philippine Koel. 
While the preceding species, E. melanorphyncha of Celebes and Sula, is 
readily distinguishable by its black bill from other members of the genus Eudy- 
namis, the distinguishing characters of the remaining species, which are spread 
out from India and S. China across the Archipelago to New Guinea and Australia, 
are by no means so strongly pronounced. Especial care, too, is called for in 
considering the western forms, owing to the circumstance that — in certain 
parts at least — the species are not perfectly stationary. Thus, the species 
spoken of as Eudynamis maculata by Swinhoe (P. Z. S. 1871, 394), David 
& Oustalet (Ois. Chine 60) and De La Touche (Ibis 1892, 480) is only a 
summer visitor to South China; and Mr. Whitehead remarks: “I never heard 
