Spencer G Sealy, Todd J Underwood. 2012: Egg discrimination by hosts and obligate brood parasites: a historical perspective and new synthesis. Avian Research, 3(4): 274-294. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0042
Citation: Spencer G Sealy, Todd J Underwood. 2012: Egg discrimination by hosts and obligate brood parasites: a historical perspective and new synthesis. Avian Research, 3(4): 274-294. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0042

Egg discrimination by hosts and obligate brood parasites: a historical perspective and new synthesis

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Spencer G. Sealy, E-mail: sgsealy@cc.umanitoba.ca

  • Received Date: 29 Nov 2012
  • Accepted Date: 18 Dec 2012
  • Available Online: 23 Apr 2023
  • With the knowledge that cuckoos and cowbirds lay their eggs parasitically, and that some hosts eject parasitic eggs, ornithologists began to ponder the question of how host females discriminate between a foreign egg and their own eggs, wondering how hosts "know" which egg to remove. Results of one of the first uncontrolled experiments were inappropriately interpreted to imply ejection was based on discordancy, with hosts simply ejecting the egg in the minority, or the "odd-looking" egg. Controlled experiments eventually revealed that hosts first learn the appearance of own their eggs and discriminate between them and any odd egg in their nest, regardless of which egg type is in the minority. Recent work has shown that discordancy may play a role in discrimination by males mated successively with females that lay polymorphic eggs. We examine the details of the early experiments, in light of recent advances in studies of egg recognition. An ability to recognize eggs also has been extended, implicitly, to include obligate brood parasites, as it underlies several hypotheses in explanation of the behavior of parasites toward their hosts. Egg recognition in parasites, however, has not been experimentally confirmed, nor has a mechanism been identified by which parasites could discriminate between their own eggs and the other eggs in a nest. We review hypotheses (parasite competition, egg removal and multiple parasitism, mafia, farming) that require the ability of obligate brood parasites to discriminate eggs at different levels and the potential mechanisms used by parasites to recognize their own eggs and suggest experiments to test for egg discrimination. An assessment of the egg recognition ability of parasites is germane to our understanding of how parasites counteract defenses of hosts.

  • The well-known arms race Between parasitic cuckoos and their hosts has long been a model system for the study of coevolution and microevolution (Davies, 2000; Soler, 2014). Approximately 2300 years ago, Aristotle (382-322 BC) wrote that "it (i.e., the Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus) lays its eggs in the nest of smaller birds after devouring these birds's eggs" (Peck 1970). Many years later, the 'father of vaccination', Edward Jenner (1788), observed the ejection behavior of cuckoo chicks and published his finding, on the basis of which he came to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. Afterwards Darwin (1859) proposed the first explanation for how the parasitic behavior of cuckoos could have evolved by natural selection. Cuckoos exploit their hosts by transferring parental care to the host and this parasitism is undoubtedly costly for the hosts of the cuckoo (Rothstein and Robinson 1998; Davies 2000; Soler 2014). Furthermore, cuckoo parasitism destroys or severely reduces the reproductive success of its hosts (Davies 2011). This special behavior has provoked evolution of anti-parasitic defences in hosts, mainly involving a specific aggressive response towards cuckoos, a recognition of cuckoo eggs or chicks, a counter-adaptation against cuckoo trickery (e.g., egg mimicry) or fine tuning of parasitic adaptations (e.g., rapid egg-laying) (Dawkins and Krebs 1979; Davies 2011). Although this coevolutionary interaction between cuckoos and their hosts has been studied for a long time and a series of theories and hypotheses have been proposed, such as evolutionary lag, evolutionary equilibrium, strong eggshell and rapid laying of eggs by parasites, interaction between egg mimicry and egg recognition, host imprinting, host shift and chick recognition (Brooke and Davies 1988; Moksnes et al. 1991; Davies 2000; Røskaft et al. 2002; Langmore et al. 2003; Kilner 2006; Yang et al. 2013a), so far some puzzles have remained unsolved. For example, the question of whether cuckoos parasitize their hosts by laying eggs randomly or matching the egg morphs in host nests is one of the mysteries of the cuckoo problem (Davies 2000, Antonov et al. 2012).

    To date four empirical papers have been published to test this mystery (Avilés et al. 2006, Cherry et al. 2007, Antonov et al. 2012, Honza et al. 2014; Table 1), but only one showed that cuckoos lay eggs randomly in the nests of their hosts (Antonov et al. 2012). Scientists tend to believe that cuckoos lay eggs matching the appearance of host eggs due to selection caused by a high egg recognition ability of the hosts (Avilés et al. 2006; Cherry et al. 2007; Honza et al. 2014).

    Table  1.  Summary of previous studies of egg matching by cuckoos and current theories violated by the findings
    Former studies Data source Method Main findings Theories violated by the findings Costs for the cuckoos
    Avilés et al. (2006) Museum and field data comparing cuckoo egg matching between parasitized and non-parasitized nests cuckoos laid matching eggs secretive behavior and rapid egg-laying of cuckoos; host imprinting and host selection by cuckoos increase the risk of detection by hosts; loss of time searching for nests and monitoring host behavior; mis-imprinting in host selection
    Cherry et al. (2007) Field data cuckoos laid matching eggs
    Honza et al.(2014) Field data cuckoos laid matching eggs
    Antonov et al. (2012) Field data cuckoo laid eggs randomly - waste of poor-matching eggs in nests when hosts are good rejecters
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    At first, we briefly review previous empirical studies which have examined this mystery, provide examples of unmatched cuckoo eggs in host nests and key life history traits of cuckoos, e.g. their secretive behavior and rapid egg-laying and link them to cuckoo egg laying behavior. We then develop a conceptual model to demonstrate why cuckoos should utilize their hosts by laying eggs randomly rather than matching the appearance of host eggs. We opted for coevolution between Common Cuckoos and their parrotbill hosts (Paradoxornis alphonsianus), both of which have evolved polymorphic eggs (mainly blue and white) (Yang et al. 2010, 2013b), as an example for the model and follow with a discussion of this issue. In the end, we propose an empirical test that can provide direct evidence concerning the egg-laying properties of female cuckoos.

    It has been supposed that cuckoo nestlings imprint on their foster parents and return to parasitize them as adults (Lack 1968; Davies 2000); however, laying a matching egg is not necessary. According to previous studies, cuckoos lay non-mimetic eggs in nests of many regular hosts (Payne 2005; Lee 2008; Yang et al. 2012a, 2012b; Lowther 2013). For example, Lee (2008) found that the Common Cuckoo laid 52.6% of unmatched cuckoo eggs in the nests of the Vinous-throated Parrotbill (Paradoxornis webbianus) that lays polymorphic eggs. This percentage is a considerable underestimation because the hosts rejected 82.6% of poorly-matching eggs and 16.7% of well-matching eggs (Lee 2008) and hence many unmatched cuckoo eggs should have been rejected before their detection by observers. Furthermore, cuckoos laid 100% non-matching eggs in Dunnock (Prunella modularis) nests (Davies and Brooke 1989). Since cuckoos do not experience the responses to their eggs by hosts as dunnocks do, nor recognize unmatched eggs (i.e., accept or reject cuckoo eggs), they should not lay non-mimetic eggs in dunnock nests, if cuckoos were to lay eggs based on their own egg appearance.

    The first tentative study considering cuckoo-host egg matching was by Avilés et al. (2006), which is a summary of the temporal changes in the degree of matching between Common Cuckoo and host (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) eggs, over a period of 24 consecutive years. They found that ultraviolet-brownness of cuckoo eggs was similar to that of host eggs at parasitized nests but differed from that of host eggs at non-parasitized nests (Avilés et al. 2006). Subsequently, three short-term studies investigated the degree of cuckoo-host egg matching between parasitized and non-parasitized nests (Cherry et al. 2007; Antonov et al. 2012; Honza et al. 2014). Cherry et al. (2007) tested this hypothesis in the Great Reed Warbler (A. arundinaceus), while Antonov et al. (2012) conducted an experiment with the Mash Warbler (A. palustris). However, these two studies present opposing conclusions. A final study by Honza et al. (2014) of great reed warblers quantified egg color by relying on physiological modeling of avian color vision. They also assessed cuckoo egg matching in host clutches that were suitable for parasitism in terms of timing but remained non-parasitized (Honza et al. 2014). However, multi-parasitized nests were excluded from their study. A total of 19 nests (31%) out of 61 nests were parasitized, while four nests (21%) were double parasitized and hence not included in the analysis (Honza et al. 2014).

    These empirical studies attempted to assign parasitism status correctly in order to avoid the idea that cuckoo eggs in some parasitized nests had been rejected by hosts before their detection. These efforts included marking host eggs in each nest soon after laying (Cherry et al. 2007, Honza et al. 2014) or using nests found during nest building or at early stages of egg laying (Antonov et al. 2012) (Table 1). All the same, the potential risk of undetected parasitism and rejection by hosts still exists, no matter how small. Logically, only real full-time monitoring can completely exclude this bias. So far among these previous studies, Honza et al. (2014) have provided convincing support for solving this problem. However, they have not analyzed mimicry of egg pattern, which cannot be quantified by spectra. Recently new pattern quantification techniques from avian vision were developed (Stoddard and Stevens 2010; Stoddard et al. 2014), which may eliminate this restriction. Furthermore, since Common Cuckoos remove one host egg before laying their own egg (Davies 2000), scientists would be unable to compare the whole clutch of parasitized nests with that of non-parasitized nests, contributing further bias to studies. Such effects may be slight in host species with low intraclutch variation but can be severe in species with high intraclutch variation. To eliminate this problem, the spectra of each host egg should be measured soon after it is laid to avoid omission of any egg removal by cuckoos. Such frequent manipulation will exert considerable disturbance on both hosts and cuckoos, increase the rate of nest desertion of hosts and obstruct cuckoo parasitism, since cuckoos usually lay eggs during the egg-laying period of their hosts (Davies 2000). Moreover, such disturbance will also increase or decrease the risk of predation (Ibáñnz-Álamo et al. 2012). All these potential risks may together affect the results and cause bias. Additionally, none of these studies provide direct evidence of cuckoos choosing to parasitize host nests where egg color and pattern match. The degree of egg matching between cuckoo eggs and those of a host, as detected by humans, should be caused by egg recognition ability of hosts, rather than the selection of matching host eggs by cuckoos (Table 1).

    In order to deceive their hosts successfully, parasitic cuckoos have evolved a variety of tricks, selected for various anti-parasitic defences by hosts (Davies 2011). At first, female cuckoos should behave secretively to gain access to host nests for egg laying to avoid detection by hosts (Payne 1977). Detection, mobbing or attack by hosts are costly for cuckoos. Mobbing or attack by hosts may cause failure of egg-laying, injury and even have lethal consequence for adult cuckoos (Liversidge 1970; Davies 2000, 2011; Røskaft et al. 2002; Krüger 2011). For example, the mobbing by the bulbul (Pycnonotus capensis) makes it difficult for the female Jacobin cuckoo (Clamator jacobinus) to gain access to the host nest, but also difficult to monitor host behavior and hence time her laying correctly. In the end, many cuckoo eggs are laid too late and fail to hatch (Liversidge 1970; Krüger 2011). Furthermore, exposure, when laying eggs, also increases the rejection rate of cuckoo eggs because hosts may enhance their ability to discriminate against foreign eggs from increased risk of parasitism (e.g. Brooke et al. 1998; Stokke et al. 2008). Therefore, female cuckoos have evolved an astonishing ability of rapid egg-laying, i.e., in 7-158 seconds, a strong selection (evolutionary?) option as a consequence of nest defence by hosts (Payne 1977; Davies 2000; Moksnes et al. 2000). Fast egg laying in most obligate interspecific brood parasites is common and may have evolved to minimize host detection, which can elicit host defences and lower the likelihood of successful parasitism (Davies and Brooke Davies and Brooke 1988; Kattan 1997; Langmore et al. 2003; Mermoz and Reboreda 2003). Hosts can increase their defences when detecting parasite activity, which should select for cryptic habits in brood parasites (Moksnes et al. 1991; Bártol et al. 2003; Feeney et al. 2012).

    However, when cuckoos search for host nests and lay eggs matching the appearance of the eggs of their hosts based on their own egg morphs, this will considerably increase the risk of detection by hosts because of high activity during parasitism. For example, a female Common Cuckoo of the parrotbill-specific gentes that lays blue eggs, should parasitize blue clutches of hosts. However, she cannot predict the color of host eggs before the female parrotbill lays them. Although parasitism generally occurs during the laying period, cuckoos spend most of their time monitoring the reproductive activity of their hosts (Davies 2000). Consequently, we can imagine that the blue-egg cuckoo would have to neglect white clutches that she has encountered and keep looking for blue clutches. That allows us to predict the costs for this phenomenon, for (1): this increases the risk of detection by hosts, which may cause subsequent attack or promote egg rejection by hosts (Moksnes et al. 1991; Honza et al. 2002) and (2): it causes loss of time seeking for host nests and monitoring host behavior (Table 1). The negative outcome of the second problem for cuckoos is undoubtedly costly for cuckoos invest time to search for host nests and monitor their breeding behavior within a breeding season (Chance 1940, Davies 2011). If the proportion of blue and white clutches in parrotbills is 1:1, female cuckoos face a probability of only 50% of the host egg color matching that of their own eggs. The real proportion of blue and white clutches in parrotbills is similar to this ratio (Yang et al. 2010).

    Scientists may argue that laying eggs in a host nest randomly is also costly because of the waste of eggs in nests with poorly matching eggs. To compare the costs and benefits, we should consider nest density, habitat distribution of various egg morphs and the ability to recognize different host species in their habitat. We suggest that scientists should use mathematical modeling to quantify the costs of both properties and simulate the outcomes. In addition, egg laying by female cuckoos is so fast (less than 10 seconds, Davies 2000) that it could also prevent cuckoos from watching the host eggs carefully to check for matching status. Furthermore, so far no observation or video recording has shown that a female cuckoo gives up laying an egg in host nests when she finds that the host clutch does not match her egg morph, although some strange behavior of cuckoos, visiting host nests without laying eggs, has been recorded (Moksnes et al. 2000, Honza et al. 2002). Long-time monitoring, secretive approach and rapid egg laying by cuckoos are proven to be widespread and undoubted adaptations, selected by host defences (Rothstein and Robinson 1998; Davies 2000; Soler 2014). Matched egg laying with respect to egg phenotype contradicts these adaptations and thus seems to be maladaptive. One may argue that this inference is not persuasive. In the following we provide further arguments to show that cuckoo egg laying, based on the appearance of their own eggs, is maladaptive for host selection.

    Parasitic cuckoos can lay a variety of egg morphs to utilize different species of hosts. For example, common cuckoos in Europe have been divided into at least 16 host-specific races or gentes based on human visual inspection (Wyllie 1981; Álvarez 1994; Moksnes and Røskaft 1995). The question of how cuckoos maintain these distinct gentes and select hosts remains a puzzle (Honza et al. 2001). Two major hypotheses have been suggested - host imprinting and habitat imprinting (Lack 1968; Lotem 1993; Teuschl et al. 1998). The host imprint hypothesis assumes that a female cuckoo lays the same egg type as her mother and seeks to parasitize the same host species that raised her through imprinting on the characteristics of host parents (Lack 1968, Davies 2000). Therefore, for example, a female cuckoo nestling, raised by parrotbills, should choose to parasitize parrotbill nests when she starts to breed. For the habitat imprinting hypothesis, cuckoo nestlings imprint on the habitats in which they hatched (Moksnes and Røskaft 1995, Teuschl et al. 1998). Another explanation is a mixture of these two hypotheses with a sequence of decisions (Teuschl et al. 1998; Davies 2000). Scientists tend to believe that the most likely is host imprinting as shown for host choice by parasitic finches (Nicolai 1961; Davies 2000), although habitat imprinting may serve as a pre-adaptation for general nest searches by cuckoos (Teuschl et al. 1998, Honza et al. 2002, Vogl et al. 2002).

    Natural selection acts on the phenotypes or the observable characteristics of organisms, which relate to fitness and vary between individuals within populations (Darwin 1859). Therefore, variation in egg phenotypes among individual cuckoos favors those that maximize fitness by utilizing potential new host species, especially when common hosts evolve high rates of egg rejection and cuckoos hence have low reproductive success in commonly parasitized nests compared to nests of novel hosts. For example, common cuckoos have been found to parasitize more than 300 species of hosts, which belong to about 46 families of birds (Lowther 2013).

    We developed a conceptual and straightforward model to illustrate the outcome of potential host selection by cuckoos under two scenarios that reflect random egg laying or phenotypic matching (Figure 1). In this model we hypothesize that a female common cuckoo of the parrotbill gens lays a blue egg (female embryo inside) in a nest of a potential new, naive and suitable host by chance, which lays monomorphic white eggs. If accepted, the female cuckoo egg will hatch, while the host parents will rear the nestling. When this cuckoo chick successfully fledges, she returns to the place of hatching or disperses elsewhere, but chooses to parasitize the new host on which she has imprinted. If cuckoos lay eggs matching those of the hosts, based on their own egg appearance and if this behavior were inherited, this young female cuckoo would lay blue eggs. Thus we can speculate that the reproductive success of this young female cuckoo is zero because she can never find any nest in which the egg color matches her own. Even if imprinting of egg appearance in cuckoos (i.e., knowing their own egg appearance) is acquired through learning rather than inherited, this female cuckoo can only succeed in her first trial of laying for learning, but again fails to find any suitable nest for the rest of her life. By contrast, if cuckoos utilize hosts by laying eggs randomly, they will enjoy greater reproductive success (Figure 2). Therefore, there is a risk of mis-imprinting when cuckoos lay eggs based on the appearance of their own eggs. We also consider additional situations in the model (see Figures 1 and 2 for more details), which are interpreted below.

    Figure  1.  A conceptual model of host selection by cuckoos based on the assumption that cuckoos known their own egg appearance and choose to parasitize hosts by laying eggs matching the appearance of host eggs.
    Figure  2.  A conceptual model of host selection by cuckoos based on the assumption that cuckoos choose to parasitize hosts by laying eggs randomly in host nests.

    Our conceptual model is based on the assumptions that (1): rejectors refer to hosts that reject all non-mimetic eggs and acceptors that accept them, (2): the new host species lays blue eggs, which are similar to the blue cuckoo eggs, but not particularly matching because it has had no coevolutionary history with the cuckoo, hence blue egg rejectors of hosts also reject a proportion of blue cuckoo eggs and (3): the cuckoo chicks imprint on the host species, which raise them.

    According to Figure 1, female cuckoos have a probabilities of p1 to parasitize hosts of rejectors and and q1 of acceptors, where p1 + q1 = 1. Rejectors then can be divided into hosts laying eggs of different appearance, including blue eggs (host A with p2), which are similar to those of the female cuckoos and other egg morphs (host B with q2). However, host B rejects all blue eggs and causes failure of cuckoo parasitism. Host A accepts a proportion (p4) of blue cuckoo eggs, but rejects the others (q4). Only the accepted blue eggs can be incubated by hosts resulting in the cuckoo chicks fledging and choosing to parasitize host A again, with the consequence that the cuckoo chick has a probability of success of q5 and q6 to coevolve with host A. According to the second assumption, this probability (q5 + q6) depends on the egg-matching abilities of female cuckoos. In other words, q5 and q6 decreases with the increasing egg-matching ability of female cuckoos. This is close to zero when cuckoos have a good ability to match the egg appearance of hosts during laying. We included two mechanisms of acquisition of information on the appearance of own eggs in cuckoos in the model. However, even if the ability of learning egg appearance in cuckoos is acquired rather than inherited, female cuckoos can only succeed in their first trials of laying for learning but fail the second time. Similarly, for acceptor hosts laying blue eggs, female cuckoos possess a success rate of q7 and q8, which also decrease with the increase of egg-matching ability by cuckoos. In short, a successful probability is the sum of p5 + p6 + p7 + p8, which is close to zero when cuckoos have a great ability to lay eggs with a high degree of egg matching. In such a situation almost no cuckoo offspring can succeed in utilizing new host species.

    By contrast, the results from the model that cuckoos parasitize new host species by laying eggs randomly are much simpler (Figure 2). Only if the new hosts were rejectors and laid non-blue eggs would this cause failure of cuckoo parasitism.

    We have argued theoretically that laying eggs matching those of the host, violates the key traits in the life history of cuckoos and therefore should not evolve by natural selection.

    First, egg matching behavior is against the secretive behavior of approaching cuckoos near host nests and wastes time by long-term monitoring of host behavior on the part of cuckoos.

    Second, if cuckoos chose hosts with eggs similar to those with their own egg appearance, they would cause extreme constraints on the flexibility of their offspring to accept and adapt to a new host by pushing them into an evolutionary dead-end. Therefore, this would entirely cut off the evolution of exploitation of new hosts. It is likely that the percentage of egg matching between cuckoo and host eggs, as detected by humans, should be caused by the ability of egg recognition on the part of hosts (Davies and Brooke 1989), rather than the selection of matching host eggs by cuckoos.

    Finally, we suggest an empirical method, referred to as an "induced parasitism experiment", that may provide direct evidence to demonstrate how the cuckoo lays its eggs. In such an experiment, scientists establish artificial nests in which eggs of a different appearance are provided for egg laying by cuckoos. In this scenario, female cuckoos can readily monitor the focal nests because of the short distances between nests and lay an egg randomly or match the egg appearance of the eggs in these nests with that of their own eggs. If female cuckoos do not match their eggs with those of their hosts in this scenario of little or no constraints, there is no reason to believe that female cuckoos would be able to achieve a greater level of matching under natural conditions when host nests are considerably more difficult to find. This method should be feasible because Chance (1940) actually carried out a similar trial_ before, collecting cuckoo eggs.

    We conclude by suggesting that cuckoo egg laying by matching host eggs is maladaptive and should not evolve from natural selection.

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    WL designed the study. FT, WL and CY discussed and developed the modeling and CY performed all analyses. CY and AP drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the paper.

    This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 31071938, 31272328 and 31472013 to WL, and 31260514 to CY), the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-13-0761), the Key Project of the Chinese Ministry of Education (no. 212136) and the Program of International S & T Cooperation (KJHZ2013-12) to CY.

  • Ali S. 1931. The origin of mimicry in cuckoo eggs. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc, 34:1067-1070.
    Arcese P, Smith JNM, Hatch MI. 1996. Nest predation by cow-birds and its consequences for passerine demography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 93:4608-4611.
    Avilés JM, Soler JJ, Prez-Contreras T. 2006. Dark nests and egg colour in birds: a possible functional role of ultraviolet reflectance in egg detectability. Proc R Soc Lond B, 273:2821-2829.
    Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Åsmul M, Møller AP. 2006. Rapid increase in cuckoo egg matching in a recently parasitized Reed Warbler population. J Evol Biol, 19:1901-1910.
    Avilés JM, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Møller AP. 2007. Envormental conditions influence egg color of Reed Warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus and their parasite, the Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 61:475-485.
    Baldamus E. 1892. Das Leben der euorpäischen Kuckucke. Parey, Berlin.
    Becking JH. 1981. Notes on the breeding of Indian cuckoos. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc, 78:201-231.
    Blyth E. 1835. Observations on the cuckoo. Mag Nat Hist, 8:325-340.
    Bogale BA, Kamata N, Mioko K, Sugita S. 2011. Quantity discrimination in Jungle Crows, Corvus macrorhynchos. Anim Behav, 82:635-641.
    Brewer TM. 1840. Wilson's American Ornithology. Otis, Broaders, Boston.
    Brooker MG, Brooker LC. 1989. The comparative breeding behaviour of two sympatric cuckoos, Horsefield's Bronze-cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis and the Shining Bronze-cuckoo C. lucidus, in Western Australia: a new model for the evolution of egg morphology and host specificity in avian brood parasites. Ibis, 131:528-547.
    Brooker LC, Brooker MG. 1990. Why are cuckoos host specific?. Oikos, 57:301-309.
    Čapek V. 1896. Beiträge zur Fortpflanzungsgeschichte des Kuckucks. Ornithol Jahrbuch, 7:41-72, 102-118, 146-157, 165-183.
    Carpenter GDH. 1941-42. Observations and experiments in Africa by the late C. F. M. Swynnerton on wild birds eating butterflies and the preferences shown. Proc Linn Soc Lond, 154:10-34.
    Chance E[P]. 1922. The Cuckoo's Secret. Sidgwick and Jackson, London.
    Chance EP. 1940. The Truth about the Cuckoo. Country Life, London.
    Cherry MI, Bennett ATD. 2001. Egg colour matching in an African cuckoo, as revealed by ultraviolet-visible reflectance spectrophotometry. Proc R Soc Lond B, 268:565-571.
    Clark L, Mason JR. 1989. Sensitivity of Brown-headed Cowbirds to volatiles. Condor, 91:922-932.
    Cott HB. 1940. Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    Davies NB. 1999. Cuckoos and cowbirds versus hosts: co-evolutionary lag and equilibrium. Ostrich, 70:71-79.
    Davies NB. 2000. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. Poyser, London.
    Davies NB, Brooke MdL. 1988. Cuckoos versus Reed Warblers: adaptations and counteradaptations. Anim Behav, 36:262-284. Davies NB, Brooke MdL. 1989. An experimental study of co-evolution between the cuckoo, Cuculus canorus, and its hosts. I. Host egg discrimination. J Anim Ecol, 58:207-224.
    Davies NB, Brooke MdL. 1998. Cuckoos versus hosts: experimental evidence for co-evolution. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts: Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 59-79.
    Dawkins R, Krebs JR. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B, 205:489-511.
    Dufty AM Jr. 1983. Variation in the egg markings of the Brown-headed Cowbird. Condor, 85:109-111.
    Friedmann H. 1964. The history of our knowledge of avian brood parasitism. Centaurus, 10:282-304.
    Gärtner K. 1981. Das Wegnehmen von Wirtsvogeleiern durch den Kuckuck (Cuculus canorus). Ornithol Mitt, 33:15-131.
    Gehringer F. 1979. Etude sur le pillage par le Coucou, Cuculus canorus, des œufs de la Rousserolle effarvatte. Nos Oiseaux, 35:1-16.
    Gesner C. 1669. Vogelbuch. Wilhelm Serlins, Frankfurt-am-Main.
    Gibbs HL, Sorenson MD, Marchetti K, Brooke MdL, Davies NB, Nakamura H. 2000. Genetic evidence for female host-specific races of the Common Cuckoo. Nature, 407:83-186.
    Gill FB, Wright M. 2006. Birds of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
    Gurney JH. 1899. The economy of the cuckoo (Cuculus canorus). Trans Norfolk Norwich Nat Hist Soc, 6:365-384.
    Hagelin JC, Jones IL. 2007. Bird odors and other chemical substances: a defense mechanism or overlooked mode of intraspecific communication? Auk, 124:741-761.
    Hamilton WJ, Ⅲ, Orians GH. 1965. Evolution of brood parasitism in altricial birds. Condor, 37:361-382.
    Hann HW. 1937. Life history of the oven-bird in southern Michigan. Wilson Bull, 49:145-237.
    Higuchi H. 1998. Host use and egg color of Japanese cuckoos. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts: Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 80-93.
    Honza M, Požgayová M, Procházka P, Tkadlec E. 2007. Consistency in egg rejection behaviour: responses to repeated brood parasitism in the Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla). Ethology, 113:344-351.
    Honza M, Taborsky B, Taborsky M, Teuschl Y, Vogl W, Moksnes A, Røskaft E. 2002. Behaviour of female Common Cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, in the vicinity of host nests before and during laying: a radiotelemetry study. Anim Behav, 64:861-868.
    Hoover JP. 2003. Multiple effects of brood parasitism reduce the reproductive success of Prothonotary Warblers, Protonaria citrea. Anim Behav, 65:923-935.
    Hoover JP, Robinson SK. 2007. Retaliatory mafia behavior by a parasitic cowbird favors host acceptance of parasitic eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 104:4474-4483. .
    Jenner E. 1788. Observations on the natural history of the cuckoo. Phil Trans R Soc Lond, 78:219-237.
    Jourdain FCR. 1925. A study on parasitism in the cuckoos. Proc Zool Soc Lond, 1925:639-667.
    Junker T. 2003. Ornithology and the genesis of the synthetic theory of evolution. Avian Sci, 3:65-73.
    Kelly C. 1987. A model to explore the rate of spread of mimicry and rejection in hypothetical populations of cuckoos and their hosts. J Theor Biol, 125:282-299.
    Kilner RM. 2006. The evolution of egg colour and patterning in birds. Biol Rev, 81:383-406.
    Kim CH, Yamagishi S, Won PO. 1995. Egg-color dimorphism and breeding success of the Crow Tit (Paradoxornis webbianus). Auk, 112:831-839.
    Kim DW. 2006. Egg discrimination ability of Paradoxornis webbianus and antiparasitic behavior against brood parasitism. MSc thesis, Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea.
    Lahti DC, Lahti AR. 2002. How precise is egg discrimination in weaverbirds? Anim Behav, 63:1135-1142.
    Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Kilner RM. 2009. Are dark cuckoo eggs cryptic in host nests? Anim Behav, 78:461-468.
    Lee JW, Kim DW, Yoo JC. 2005. Egg rejection by both male and female Vinous-throated Parrotbill Paradoxornis webbianus. Integr Biosci, 9:211-213.
    Lee Y. 2008. Egg discrimination by the vinous-throated parrotbill, a host of the common cuckoo that lays polychromatic eggs. MSc thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
    Leverkühn P. 1891. Fremde Eier im Nest: ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Vögel. Friedländer und Sohn, Berlin.
    Liang W, Yang C, Antonov A, Fossøy F, Stokke BG, Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Shykoff JA, Møller AP, Takasu F. 2011. Sex roles in egg recognition and egg polymorphism in avian brood parasitism. Behav Ecol, 23:397-402.
    Lindholm AK. 1997. Evolution of host defences against avian brood parasitism. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
    Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. 1991. Rejection of cuckoo eggs in relation to host age: a possible evolutionary equilibrium. Behav Ecol, 3:128-132.
    Lotem A, Nakamura H, Zahavi A. 1995. Constraints on egg discrimination and cuckoo-host co-evolution. Anim Behav, 49:1185-1209.
    Lottinger AJ. 1775. Le coucou. Discours apologétique, ou mé-moire sur le coucou d'Europe. JB Hiacinthe LeClerc, Nancy, France.
    Lottinger AJ. 1795. Histoire du coucou d'Europe. FG Levrault, Strasbourg, France.
    Lucas AHS. 1887. On the production of colour in birds' eggs. Trans Proc R Soc Victoria, 24:52-60.
    Lyon BE. 2003. Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature, 422:495-499.
    McMaster DG, Neudorf, DLH, Sealy SG, Pitcher TE. 2004. A comparative analysis of laying times in passerine birds. J Field Ornithol, 75:113-122.
    Marshall GAK. 1938. [Obituary of] Mr. C.F.M. Swynnerton, C.M.G. Nature, 142:198-199.
    Mayfield H. 1960. The Kirtland's Warbler. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
    Mayfield H. 1965. Chance distribution of cowbird eggs. Condor, 67:257-263.
    Mayr E, Provine wb (eds). 1980. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    Martínez JG, Soler JJ, Soler M, Burke T. 1998. Spatial patterns of egg laying and multiple parasitism in a brood parasite: a non-territorial system in the Great Spotted Cuckoo (Clamator glandarius). Oecologia, 117:286-294.
    Mason P, Rothstein SI. 1986. Coevolution and avian brood parasitism: cowbird eggs show evolutionary response to host discrimination. Evolution, 40:1207-1214.
    McEwan AJ, Joy MK. 2011. Monitoring a New Zealand freshwater fish community using passive integrated transponder (PIT) technology; lessons learned and recommendations for future use. NZ Mar Freshwater Res, 45:121-133.
    McLaren CM, Sealy SG. 2000. Are nest predation and brood parasitism correlated in Yellow Warblers? A test of the cowbird predation hypothesis. Auk, 117:1056-1060.
    McLaren CM, Woolfenden BE, Gibbs HL, Sealy SG. 2003. Genetic and temporal patterns of multiple parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) on Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Can J Zool, 81:1-6.
    Mermoz ME, Reboreda JC. 1999. Egg-laying behaviour by Shiny Cowbirds parasitizing Brown-and-yellow Marshbirds. Anim Behav, 58:873-882.
    Moksnes A. 1992. Egg recognition in Chaffinches and Bramblings. Anim Behav, 44:993-995.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Braa AT. 1991. Rejection behavior by Common Cuckoo hosts towards artificial brood parasite eggs. Auk, 108:348-354.
    Moksnes A, Røskaft E, Solli MM. 1994. Documenting puncture ejection of parasitic eggs by Chaffinches Fringilla coelebs and Blackcaps Sylvia atricapilla. Fauna norv. Series C, Cinclus, 17:115-118.
    Moreno J, Osorno JL. 2003. Avian egg colour and sexual selection: does eggshell pigmentation reflect female condition and genetic quality? Ecol Lett, 6:803-806.
    Moskát C, Bán M, Székley T, Komdeur J, Lucassen RWG, van Boheemen LA, Hauber ME. 2010. Discordancy or template-based recognition? Dissecting the cognitive basis of the rejection of foreign eggs in hosts of avian brood parasites. J Exp Biol, 213:1976-1983.
    Moskát C, Honza, M. 2002. European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism and host's rejection behaviour in a heavily parasitized Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus population. Ibis, 144:614-622.
    Nakamura T, Cruz A. 2000. The ecology of egg-puncture behavior in the Shiny Cowbird in southwestern Puerto Rico. In: Smith JNM, Cook TL, Rothstein SI, Robinson SK, Sealy SG (eds) Ecology and Management of Cowbirds and Their Hosts. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 178-186.
    Nakamura H, Miyazawa Y. 1997. Movements, space use and social organization of radio-tracked Common Cuckoos during the breeding season in Japan. Jap J Ornithol, 46:23-54.
    Newton A. 1869. Cuckows' eggs. Nature, 1:74-76.
    Nolan V Jr. 1978. The ecology and behavior of the Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor. Ornithol Monogr, No. 26.
    Orians GH, Røskaft E, Beletsky LD. 1989. Do Brown-headed Cowbirds lay their eggs at random in the nests of Red-winged Blackbirds. Wilson Bull, 101:599-605.
    Ortega CP, Ortega JC, Cruz A. 1994. Use of artificial Brown-headed Cowbird eggs as a potential management tool in deterring parasitism. J Wildl Manage, 58:488-492.
    Pagel M, Møller AP, Pomiankowski A. 1998. Reduced parasitism by retaliatory cuckoos selects for hosts that rear cuckoo nestlings. Behav Ecol, 9:566-572.
    Payne RB. 1977. The ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 8:1-28.
    Palomino JJ, Martin-Vivaldi M, Soler M, Soler JJ. 1998. Females are responsible for ejection of cuckoo eggs in the Rufous Bush Robin. Anim Behav, 56:131-136.
    Peer BD, Sealy SG. 2001. Mechanism of egg recognition in the Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus). Bird Behav, 14:71-73.
    Peer BD, Sealy SG. 2004. Fate of grackle (Quiscalus spp. ) defenses in the absence of brood parasitism: implications for long-term parasite-host coevolution. Auk, 121:1172-1186.
    Peer BD, Rothstein SI, Delaney KS, Fleischer RC. 2007. Defence behaviour against brood parasitism is deeply rooted in mainland and island scrub-jays. Anim Behav, 73:55-63.
    Pepperberg IM. 2001. Avian cognitive abilities. Bird Behav, 14:51-70.
    Picman J. 1989. Mechanism of puncture resistance of eggs of Brown-headed Cowbirds. Auk, 106:577-583.
    Poulton EB. 1890. The colours of animals: their meaning and use, especially considered in the case of insects. Int Sci Ser, no. 68.
    Poulsen H. 1953. A study of incubation responses and some other behavior patterns in birds. Vidensk Medd fra Dansk Naturh Foren, 115:1-131.
    Požgayová M, Procházka P, Honza M. 2009. Sex-specific defence behavior against brood parasitism in a host with female-only incubation. Behav Processes, 81:34-38.
    Preston FW. 1948. The cowbird (M. ater) and the cuckoo (C. canorus). Ecology, 29:115-116.
    Rasmussen JL, Sealy SG, Underwood TJ. 2009. Video recording reveals the method of ejection of Brown headed Cowbird eggs and no cost in American Robins and Gray Catbirds. Condor, 111:570-574.
    Reboreda JC, Clayton NS, Kacelnik A. 1996. Species and sex differences in hippocampus size in parasitic and non-parasitic cowbirds. Neuroreport, 7:505-508.
    Rennie J. 1831. The Architecture of Birds. Charles Knight, Lon-don.
    Rensch B. 1924. Zur Entstehung der Mimikry der Kuckuckseier. J Ornithol, 72:461-472.
    Rensch B. 1925. Verhalten von Singvögeln bei Aenderung des Geleges. Ornithol Monatschr, 33:169-173.
    Rey E. 1892. Altes und Neues aus dem Haushalte des Kuckucks. Freese, Leipzig.
    Rivers JW, Young S, Gonzalez EG, Horton B, Lock J, Fleischer RC. 2012. High levels of relatedness between Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) nestmates in a heavily parasitized host community. Auk, 129:623-631.
    Roper TJ. 1999. Olfaction in birds. Adv Stud Behav, 28:247-332.
    Rothstein SI. 1970. An experimental investigation of the defenses of the hosts of the parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird (Molo-thrus ater). PhD dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
    Rothstein SI. 1974. Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: possible learned and innate factors. Auk, 91:796-807.
    Rothstein SI. 1975a. An experimental and teleonomic investigation of avian brood parasitism. Condor, 77:250-271.
    Rothstein SI. 1975b. Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: do birds know their own eggs? Anim Behav, 23:268-278.
    Rothstein SI. 1975c. Evolutionary rates and host defenses against avian brood parasitism. Am Nat, 109:161-176.
    Rothstein SI. 1977. Cowbird parasitism and egg recognition of the Northern Oriole. Wilson Bull, 89:21-32.
    Rothstein SI. 1978. Mechanisms of avian egg-recognition: additional evidence for learned components. Anim Behav, 26:671-677.
    Rothstein SI. 1982a. Successes and failures in avian egg and nestling recognition with comments on the utility of optimality reasoning. Am Zool, 22:547-560.
    Rothstein SI. 1982b. Mechanisms of avian egg recognition: which parameters elicit responses by ejecter species? Behav Ecol Soiciobiol, 11:229-239.
    Rothstein SI. 1990. A model system for coevolution: avian brood parasitism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 21:481-508.
    Rothstein SI, Robinson SK. 1998. The evolution and ecology of avian brood parasitism. In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts: Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3-56.
    Schmaltz G, Somers CM, Sharma P, Quinn JS. 2006. Non-destructive sampling of maternal DNA from the external shell of bird eggs. Conserv Genet, 7:543-549.
    Schulze-Hagen K, Stokke BG, Birkhead TR. 2009. Reproductive biology of the European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus: early insights, persistent errors and the acquisition of knowledge. J Ornithol, 150:1-16.
    Sealy SG. 1992. Removal of Yellow Warbler eggs in association with cowbird parasitism. Condor, 94:40-54.
    Sealy SG. 1996. Evolution of host defenses against brood parasitism: implications for puncture-ejection by a small passerine. Auk, 113:346-355.
    Sealy SG. 2009. Cuckoos and their fosterers: uncovering details of Edward Blyth's field experiments. Arch Nat Hist, 36:129-135.
    Sealy SG, Bazin RC. 1995. Low frequency of observed cowbird parasitism on Eastern Kingbirds: host rejection, effective nest defense, or parasite avoidance? Behav Ecol, 6:140-145.
    Sealy SG, Guigueno MF. 2011. Cuckoo chicks evicting their nest mates: coincidental observations by Edward Jenner in England and Antoine Joseph Lottinger in France. Arch Nat Hist, 38:220-228.
    Sealy SG, Lorenzana JC. 1998. Yellow Warblers (Dendroica petechia) do not recognize their own eggs. Bird Behav, 12:57-66.
    Sealy SG, Neudorf DL. 1995. Male Northern Orioles eject cow-bird eggs: Implications for the evolution of rejection behavior. Condor, 369-375.
    Sealy SG, McMaster DG, Peer BD. 2002. Tactics of obligate brood parasites to secure suitable incubators. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian Incubation: Behaviour, Environment, and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 254-269.
    Sealy SG, Neudorf DL, Hill DP. 1995. Rapid laying by Brown-headed Cowbirds and other parasitic birds. Ibis, 137:76-84.
    Sherry DF, Vaccarino AL, Buckenham K, Herz RS. 1989. The hippocampal complex of food-storing birds. Brain Behav Evol, 34:308-317.
    Sherry DF, Forbes ML, Khurgel M, Ivy GO. 1993. Females have a larger hippocampus than males in the brood-parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 90:7839-7843.
    Smith JNM, Taitt MJ, Zanette L, Myers-Smith IH. 2003. How do Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) cause nest failure in Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia)? A removal experiment. Auk, 120:772-783.
    Soler JJ, Møller AP, Soler M. 1998. Mafia behavior and the evolution of facultative virulence. J Theor Biol, 191:267-277.
    Soler JJ, Sorci G, Soler M, Møller AP. 1999. Change in host rejection behavior mediated by the predatory behavior of its brood parasite. Behav Ecol, 10:275-180.
    Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG. 1998. Duration of sympatry and coevolution between the Great Spotted Cuckoo (Clamater glandarius) and its primary host, the Magpie (Pica pica). In: Rothstein SI, Robinson SK (eds) Parasitic Birds and Their Hosts: Studies in Coevolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113-142.
    Soler M, Fernández-Morante, Espinosa F, Martín-Vivaldi M. 2012. Pecking but accepting the parasitic eggs may not reflect ejection failure: the role of motivation. Ethology, 118:662-672.
    Soler M, Martín-Vivaldi M, Pérez-Contreras T. 2002. Identifi-cation of the sex that is responsible for recognition and the method of ejection of parasite eggs in some potential Common Cuckoo hosts. Ethology, 108:1093-1101.
    Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG. 1997. Great Spotted Cuckoos improve their reproductive success by damaging magpie host eggs. Anim Behav, 54:1227-1233.
    Soler M, Soler JJ, Martínez JG, Møller AP. 1995. Magpie host manipulation by Great Spotted Cuckoos: evidence for an avian mafia? Evolution, 49:770-775.
    Strausberger BM, Rothstein SI. 2009. Parasitic cowbirds may defeat defense by causing rejecters to misimprint of cowbird eggs. Behav Ecol, 20:691-699.
    Stuart Baker EC. 1913. The evolution of adaptation in parasitic cuckoos' eggs. Ibis, Series 10, 1:384-398.
    Stuart Baker EC. 1942. Cuckoo Problems. Witherby, London.
    Swynnerton CFM. 1916. On the coloration of the mouths and eggs of birds.-Ⅱ. On the coloration of eggs. Ibis, Series 10, 4:529-606.
    Swynnerton CFM. 1918. Rejections by birds of eggs unlike their own: with remarks on some of the cuckoo problems. Ibis, Series 10, 6:127-154.
    Underwood TJ, Sealy SG. 2002. Adaptive significance of egg coloration. In: Deeming DC (ed) Avian Incubation: Behaviour, Environment, and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280-298.
    Underwood TJ, Sealy SG. 2006. Parameters of Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater egg recognition and ejection in War-bling Vireos Vireo gilvus. J Avian Biol, 37:457-466.
    Underwood TJ, Sealy SG. 2008. UV reflectance of eggs of Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and acceptor and rejecter hosts. J Ornithol, 149:313-321.
    Underwood TJ, Sealy SG. 2011. Behavior of Warbling Vireos ejecting real and artificial cowbird eggs. Wilson J Ornithol, 123:395-400.
    Underwood TJ, Sealy SG, McLaren CM. 2004. Experiments on egg discrimination in two North American corvids: further evidence for retention of egg rejection. Can J Zool, 82:1399-1407.
    Victoria JK. 1972: Clutch characteristics and egg discriminative ability of the African Village Weaverbird Ploceus cucullatus. Ibis, 114:367-376.
    Weatherhead PJ. 1989. Sex ratios, host-specific reproductive success, and impact of Brown-headed Cowbird. Auk, 106:358-366.
    Welty JC. 1962. The life of birds. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    Whittaker DJD, Reichard DG, Dapper AL, Ketterson ED. 2009. Behavioral responses of nesting female Dark-eyed Juncos Junco hyemalis to hetero-and conspecific passerine preen oils. J Avian Biol, 40:579-583.
    Wilson A. 1810. American Ornithology. Vol. 2. Bradford and In-skeep, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
    Wuketits FM. 2006. Bernhard Rensch, German evolutionist. Biol Theory, 1:410-413.
    Wyllie I. 1981. The Cuckoo. Universe, New York.
    Yang C, Cai Y, Liang W. 2012. Species identification of sympatric cuckoo nestlings in a multiple-cuckoo system, China. Chinese Birds, 3:108-112.
    Zahavi A. 1979. Parasitism and nest predation in parasitic cuckoos. Am Nat, 113:157-159.
  • Related Articles

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(10)

    1. Longwu Wang, Wei Liang. Random egg laying in host nests, rather than egg-matching, explains patterns of cuckoo parasitism: a comment on Zhang et al . (2023). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2023, 290(2006) DOI:10.1098/rspb.2023.1018
    2. Jinggang Zhang, Peter Santema, Zixuan Lin, et al. Experimental evidence that cuckoos choose host nests following an egg matching strategy. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2023, 290(1993) DOI:10.1098/rspb.2022.2094
    3. Manuel Azcárate-García, Silvia Díaz-Lora, Gustavo Tomás, et al. Spotless starlings prefer spotless eggs: conspecific brood parasites cue on eggshell spottiness to avoid ectoparasites. Animal Behaviour, 2020, 166: 33. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.05.017
    4. Wei Liang, Canchao Yang, Fugo Takasu. How can distinct egg polymorphism be maintained in the rufescent prinia (Prinia rufescens )-plaintive cuckoo (Cacomantis merulinus ) interaction-a modeling approach. Ecology and Evolution, 2017, 7(15): 5613. DOI:10.1002/ece3.3090
    5. Canchao Yang, Longwu Wang, Wei Liang, et al. How cuckoos find and choose host nests for parasitism. Behavioral Ecology, 2017, 28(3): 859. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arx049
    6. Federico Morelli, Anders Pape Møller, Emma Nelson, et al. Cuckoo as indicator of high functional diversity of bird communities: A new paradigm for biodiversity surrogacy. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 72: 565. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.059
    7. Donglai Li, Yanan Ruan, Ying Wang, et al. Egg-spot matching in common cuckoo parasitism of the oriental reed warbler: effects of host nest availability and egg rejection. Avian Research, 2016, 7(1) DOI:10.1186/s40657-016-0057-y
    8. Canchao Yang, Qiuli Huang, Longwu Wang, et al. Plaintive cuckoos do not select tailorbird hosts that match the phenotypes of their own eggs. Behavioral Ecology, 2016, 27(3): 835. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arv226
    9. Canchao Yang, Longwu Wang, Wei Liang, et al. Do common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) possess an optimal laying behaviour to match their own egg phenotype to that of their Oriental reed warbler (Acrocephalus orientalis) hosts?. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 117(3): 422. DOI:10.1111/bij.12690
    10. Mominul Islam Nahid, Frode Fossøy, Sajeda Begum, et al. First record of Common Tailorbird (Orthotomus sutorius) parasitism by Plaintive Cuckoo (Cacomantis merulinus) in Bangladesh. Avian Research, 2016, 7(1) DOI:10.1186/s40657-016-0049-y

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Figures(3)  /  Tables(4)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (4156) PDF downloads (1974) Cited by(10)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return