December 1998 
13 
So there we are— if you have a fat. satisfied belly 
you will cuddle the chipmunk ior hare), but if your 
belly is daily grinding with emptiness, you will 
instinctively tear it to pieces and devour it. This is truly 
what governs the way today 's man regards cute furry 
little creatures; not comfortable theories proving that 
early man in his cave was equipped with teeth only 
appropriate for frugivorous forage (apologies. Dr Alan 
Walker') and that thus meat-eating is unnatural to us, 
so ought to be abandoned. 
And the cuddly, embattled Craws hay’s hare, scarce 
already 7 Doomsday ts in sight? But I who lament him 
have, needless to say. a replete belly. 
Fiona Alexander 
Sable Valley Wildlife Sanctuary, P.O. Box 890, Ukunda, 
via Mombasa. Kenya 
References 
Diamond, H & M. Diamond. (1985). Fit for Life. 
Bantam Books. New York. 
TWO BROOD-PARASITES AND THEIR HOSTS 
On 25 June 1998 at 15:45 I was on the verandah of the 
Makerere University Biological Field Station at 
Kanyawara. Kibale Forest National Park, Uganda 
(approximately 0°30'N, 30°25'E) when a loud 
‘spishing’ sound attracted my attention. In a small tree 
(4 m high), only some 10 m from the building, a little 
honeyguide was pursuing a male Collared Stmbird 
Artthreptes collaris and begging loudly from it. The 
honeyguide’s stubby beak and small size suggested that 
it was either Willcocks’s Indicator will cocks i or Least 
Honeyguide /, exilis, both of which have been recorded 
around the field station buildings in the past (Fishpool 
et al., 1997). Immature individuals of small Indicator 
species are very difficult to identify in the field (Short 
& Home 1988) This bird lacked conspicuous flank 
striping, suggesting that it was a Wilicocks’s Honeyguide 
As the sunbird foraged among the leaves of the 
canopy, the honeyguide followed close behind it, begging 
loudly and persistently However, the sunbird ignored 
it completely. When the sunbird flew for about 40 m 
into another tree, the honeyguide flew al ter it and began 
begging again As the sunbird flew once more into a 
tree some 50 m away, (he honeyguide was right behind 
it. Unfortunately I was unable to follow them further 
I did not see the sunbird feed the honeyguide at any 
stage, bui it seems likely that it was the honeyguide’s 
host. The Amethyst Sunbird Nectarinia amethystine is 
a known host of Eastern Honeybird Prodotiscus insignis . 
while the Scarlet-chested Sunbird N. senegalensis is 
an occasional host of Greater Honeyguide Indicator 
indicator and a possible host of Wahlberg’s Honeybird 
Prodotiscus reguhs (Short & Home 1985) The hosts 
of Least Honeyguide arc thought to be various barbels 
and tinkerbirds. while the hosts of Willcocks’s 
Honeyguide are unknown (Short & Horne 1985, 1988). 
Honeyguides that parasitise barbels must be prepared 
to fend for themselves once they emerge from their 
foster parents’ nest. As they emerge they are recognised 
as honeyguides and immediately attacked by' their foster 
family (Short & Home 1992) This observation from 
Kanyawara suggests that the situation might be different 
for non-barbet hosts. 
A few days later, on 26-28 June 1998. a juvenile 
African Emerald Cuckoo Clirysococnx Cltp reus was 
present in the small trees (mainly Polvscias, 
Zantlmxyhtm and Fagaropsis) close to the Field Station 
library and lecture theatre It was attended by a pair of 
Common Bulbuls Pxcnonotus btirbatus. who fed it 
various items, including fruit Once one of the pair 
regurgitated five bright red fruits in sequence. 
I was surprised by this combination of host and 
parasite, but in tact there are numerous records of (his 
cuckoo species parasitising Common Bulbuls (Irwin 
1988). This seems strange, since the African Emerald 
Cuckoo is a bird of the forest interior (Britton, 1980; 
Bennun et al.. 1996) while Common Bulbuls prefer 
more open habitats (Britton 1980) and rarely venture 
far into intact forest (pers. obs ). Irwin (1988) implies 
that there may be general confusion of hosts between 
African Emerald Cuckoo and Klaas’s Cuckoo C klaas , 
which is less dependent on forest. Indeed, the juveniles 
of the two species are very similar In this case, the 
iridescent green barring on the underparts, lack of a 
bull wash on the breast, and the white (not Iniflj barring 
on the head showed that the bird was a young African 
Emerald Cuckoo. At Kanyawara the forest edge is 
blurred by secondary -forest trees regenerating naturally 
around the buildings in a foimer pine plantation This 
is one place where both African Emerald Cuckoos and 
Common Bulbuls regularly occur and probably come 
into frequent contact 
I thank the Tropical Biology Association for the 
opportunity to visit Kanyawara during their field courses. 
Ixon Bennun 
Ornithology Dept.. National Museum, Box 40658, 
Nairobi. Kenya 
References 
Bennun. L., C. Dranzoa & D. lYimeroy (1996). The 
forest birds of Kenya and Uganda. Journal of East 
African Natural History 85: 5-21 
Britton. PL (cd.) (1980) Birds of East Africa / heir 
habitat, status and distribution East Africa Natural 
History Society, Nairohi 
Fishpool. L.. L. Bennun, J. Oyugi & P Weeks (1997). 
Distinctive foraging behaviour by Willcocks’s and 
Least Honeyguides. Scopus 19:110-112 
Irwin, M RS. (1988). Cueulidac, cuckoos, maikokas 
and coucals. In The Birds of Africa, Vol. Ill 
C H.Fry, S. Keith & E.K Urban, cds Academic 
Press. London Pp 58-104. 
Short, L.L. &J.F.M. Home ( 1985). Behavioral notes on 
the nest-parasitic Afrotronica! honeyguides t Avcs: 
Indicatoridae). American Museum Novitaiex 2825 : 1-46. 
