Includes bibliographies.A study was made of two Redbilled (Green) Woodhoopoe Phoeniculus purpureus populations spanning an eight year period (1981-1988) and 258 'flock-years', in the eastern Cape Province of South Mrica. The main objectives of the study were to investigate (1) why woodhoopoes live in groups; (2) why nonbreeders do not breed; and, (3) why nonbreeders provision young that are not their own? Ecological and demographic data were gathered in addition to detailed behavioural observations of 54 woodhoopoe flocks. The following experimental manipulations were performed: (1) breeders were removed from flocks to (a) monitor dispersal patterns and restructuring of flocks; and, (b) observe behavioural reactions by remaining birds; (2) cavity availability was (a) decreased, to enable quantification of availability; and, (b) increased, by addition of nest/roost boxes to an area which supported no permanent woodhoopoe territories; and, (3) stimuli, associated with the food provisioning response of adult birds, were manipulated to investigate the evolutionary basis of allofeeding behaviour Variability in social and reproductive behaviour reflects environmental selection pressures, in the form of roost-cavity availability, with a reduction in cavity availability leading to increased group size. The group-territorial social system and high level of inbreeding of Redbilled Woodhoopoes have evolved primarily in response to environmental constraints on dispersal, rather than by particular benefits that arise from group living. Therefore, the habitat-saturation hypothesis best explains group living of woodhoopoes. Behavioural dominance hierarchies ensure that dominance relationships are well-defined among potential competitors (for breeding status), and thereby minimize disruption to flock cohesion upon the death (or removal) of a breeder. If competition for a breeding vacancy arose at the time of the breeder's death, the resultant delay in occupancy of the breeding vacancy would increase the likelihood of competition from unrelated birds. The establishment of such hierarchies is therefore adaptive in the context of the direct component of kin selection. The presence of nonbreeding helpers do not increase fledgling success, breeding frequency, survivorship (of any age, sex or social class), or number of breeder-offspring produced. Because no unambiguous indirect fitness benefits could be shown to result from helping behaviour (specifically allofeeding), I propose that the unselected (misdirected parental care) hypothesis is a viable alternative to the 'functional hypotheses.' This hypothesis is supported by observations/manipulations of misdirected food provisioning by both breeders and helpers
