κἀφνειὸν ἄνδρα κὠνομαστὸν ἐξεύροι,
καὶ τῷ γέροντι πατρὶ κοῦρον εἰς χεῖρας
καὶ μητρὶ κούρην εἰς τὰ γοῦνα κατθείῃ 
The second nuptial song, which Aelian, it seems, specifically called ‘The Crow’,  has been preserved in two variants: a) Schol. Pi.
Variant (a) may be emended in several ways. For example:
ἐκκόρει, κόρη, κορών<ας>
ἐκκόρει, κόρει, κορώνας
The third possibility, which preserves the scholiast’s text but simply adds punctuation, is cited in LSJ rev. Suppl. (1996), s.v. ἐκκορέω and is defined as a ‘marriage cry of dub. form and significance’. In common with L. Deubner, R. Renehan reads an obscene sense in the line as a whole and proposes
where ‘crow’ = pudendum muliebre, hence ‘Deflower, deflower the (bride’s) sex organ.’ Renehan calls the line ‘a ritual refrain … an emphatic imperative; this is very fitting in an old magical formula’ meant to exhort the bridegroom.  G. Lambin has challenged, not altogether convincingly, attempts to interpret ἐκκορεῖν and κορώνη as obscene.  One key witness for the obscene connotations of ἐκκορεῖν is Aristophanes Thesmophorizusae 760, τίς ἐξεκόρησέ σε; (‘Who has swept away/ taken away your «daughter»?’ where ‘daughter’ is taken to mean, tongue-in-cheek, ‘leather wine-flask’). Lambin argues that the verb ἐξεκόρησε here is already a double entendre and that to convert the underlying ‘daughter’ into a triple entendre would be pointless. This objection may well be right; but even if we dismiss the regress of metaphorical slapstick in the Aristophanes passage, it is still possible to build a case for the improper connotations of ‘crow’ in epithalamian and other settings, as will be seen.
Ηere, according to Mercier and Boeckh, a ‘maiden crow’ (the bride?) is enjoined to sweep something out most likely on the nuptial night.  (Bergk’s interpretation is different, however; following Hesychius loc. cit., he takes ἐκκορεῖν intransitively and renders it ‘to sing a wedding-song’.)  But could a bride ordinarily be addressed figuratively as a crow?
εὐήθης ξείνων δέκτρια Πασιφίλη
‘Like a fig tree on rocky ground that feeds many crows,
good-natured Pasiphile takes on strangers.’ 
ἐκκορί may be an example of iotacism, the correct form being ἐκκόρει as preserved in Sch. Pi., whilst Horapollo’s κορὶ κορώνη may be emended to κορικορώνη. This compound has an unmistakable parallel in the hypocoristic reduplicated form χελιχελώνη/-α (= ‘torti-tortoise’) that occurs in the girls’ game-song printed as fr. 876 (c) (PMG).  Lambin contrariwise considers the scholiast’s ἐκκόρει κόρει ‘une correction malheureuse des cris ἐκκορὶ et κορὶ’, a nonsensical exclamation equivalent, as he suggests, to, say, the English ‘Hip-Hip-Hurrah!’ or the Berber youyou.  ἐκκορὶ κορὶ κορώνη or even ἐκκορικορικορώνη is on Lambin’s reading not so much a song per se as a sonorous refrain—a mimicry, I might add, of the crow’s raucous callings—and is formally comparable to the archetypal ὑμὴν ὑμήν, ὑμὴν ὦ ὑμέναιε; the trochaic dimeter ‘crow call’, he ventures, was shouted by a chorus to punctuate a wedding-song.  Besides the two versions just cited (ἐκκορὶ κορὶ κορώνη and ἐκκορικορώνη) this scholar has proposed two other trochaic versions, of which the former also has an absurd ring:
‘Sweep out [the house], Crowie-Crow!’