Pollination by small nonflying mammals in South Africa occurs for several animal species on different plant species. Mice (Muridae), dormice (Gliridae), and elephant shrews (Macroscelidae) are already known as pollinators of different plant species from the genus Hyacinthaceae (Massonia depressa / grandiflora, Massonia bifolia, and Massonia echinata). The present work further examines the flower visitors on M. grandiflora, which is also known as M. depressa, with regards on additional nonflying mammal species as pollinators to the mice and dormice species which were already described by (Johnson et al., 2001). The geoflorous plant has green coloured robust flowers, a sour musky odour and buttery vinegar like taste, which are typical traits for the pollination syndrome of nonflying mammals. Nectar volume and sugar concentration correlate with previous gathered data of the species and with other plants that are pollinated by nonflying mammals. Camcorder, wildlife cameras and pollen transfer experiments were used to detect Myomyscus verreauxii (Muridae) and Elephantulus edwardii (Macroscelidae) as additional potential pollinators of M. grandiflora next to the already known mice species Aethomys namaquensis, Acomys subspinosus, and Gerbillurus paeba. All observed mice species and E. edwardii licked nectar from flowers, their rostra were dusted with pollen and the stigma touched the animals. Insects and birds were never observed on M. grandiflora flowers and can be excluded as pollinators of the species. Both animal groups (mice and elephant shrews) are potential pollinators of M. grandiflora. E. edwardii showed significantly more (>10 times) stigma touches and pollen deposition. Additionally pollen transfer experiments with artificial pollen confirmed E. edwardii as a more reliable pollinator compared to different mice species as E. edwardii transferred the pollen more punctual on reproductive organs. The fact that 62.5% of all flower visits were executed by E. edwardii and the nondestructive flower visits compared to mice prove, that E. edwardii is the main pollinator of M. grandiflora. Mice with 34.6% represent potential side pollinators of M. grandiflora, but cannot be excluded due to their frequent visits. Difference in pollination efficiency between mice and E. edwardii need to be investigated further. Hemicordylus capensis was also observed as a flower visitor of M. grandiflora which was recently published (Wester, 2019). However, as only >3% of flower visits were executed by H. capensis and no contacts with reproductive plant organs were observed this species could be excluded as an efficient pollinator of M. grandiflora, but their influence should be investigated further.

H. hanekomii was recently described as a new member of the genus Hyobanche inside the Orobanchaceae family. H. hanekomii is a small geoflorous holoparasitic plant, which often grows under shrubs and has red-flowered inflorescences, which do not emit a scent. The plant combines characteristics from bird- and mammal-pollinated plants. Until now it was uncertain if H. hanekomii is pollinated by birds or by non-flying mammals, since the species is showing an intermediate morphology when compared to H. atropurpurea (mammal pollinated) and H. sanguinea (bird pollinated). Elephantulus edwardii and Nectarinia famosa were observed foraging on H. hanekomii inflorescences indicating a mixed pollination syndrome or a transmission state between bird pollination to pollination by non-flying mammal. In this study I prove that E. edwardii and N. famosa are indeed pollinators of H. hanekomii. This was done by observing the interaction between different animal species and H. hanekomii inflorescences in their natural habitat by using camera traps and camcorders. It could be observed that E. edwardii licked nectar from flowers of H. hanekomii with its long tongue. The animals pressed their rostra deep into the flowers. While foraging on the flowers, it could be observed that pollen was placed onto the rostra of the animals. It was also observed, that the stigma of the flower touched the animals on the same spots where pollen was placed. To drink on the flowers, Nectarinia famosa inserted its beak into the flowers. While doing so, it was observed that pollen was placed on the beaks and that the stigma touched the animals. It is possible that both species transport pollen from one H. hanekomii flower to another while foraging on them, and that the pollen reaches the stigma of another flower. Because of this both species are considered as pollinators of H. hanekomii. E. edwardii was identified as the main pollinator of H. hanekomii as they visit the inflorescences frequently. N. famosa was detected as a secondary pollinator of H. hanekomii as they visit the flowers infrequently. This issue has to be examined further since the rarity of N. famosa visits could be influenced by different factors like removal of perching positions around the plants to have a better camera angel or by the cameras itself, so that N. famosa would visit the H. hanekomii inflorescences more often in an non altered surrounding. In addition UV photography and spectrometry revealed that no UV reflecting areas are present on the plants indicating adaption to non-flying mammal than bird pollination syndrome. The same counts for missing stinging hairs on the flowers. In contrary some of the important flower characteristics (Flower entrance width and height) are significant smaller than those of the non-flying mammal pollinated plant H. atropurpurea indicating a bird pollination syndrome.