No. 4] rOUES's ORNITH. BIBLIOGRAPHY TROCHILIDiE. 677 



1854. BoNAPARTK, C. L. — Continued. 



of tlic same name by ditt'ereut authors and the viuving oitliosraphy of names, there are actu- 

 ally more generic namea than there ai-o species in this family ! 



I regard Bonaparte's services to the science of Ornithology to have ceased iu 1850. The 

 sum total of his after contributions to the subject, to the time when death cut shoit his 

 schemes, is not (mly a worthless l)ut a pernicious aggregate. In his latter year.s, Bonaparte 

 simply played chess with birds, with himself for king: le roi h amuse! Scheme followed 

 scheme, taldeau tableau, conspectus c(mspectus, witli peritetual cluiuges. incessant coining 

 of new names, often iu mere sport — it was uothiug but turning a kaleiiloscope. It may liave 

 been fun for him, l)ut it was death to the subject. Besides his pedantries and his pleasaut- 

 ries, he had two very bad habits, neither of them any better than a trick, by which he .juLigled 

 other authors out of the way to make room for himself. Under a thin pretence of making due 

 grace to his peers, he would take tlieir names, invest them with a new signific.ince. and i>lace 

 "Bp." after such names iu their new association; and then bestow a new name ujiou the 

 genus thus deprived of its rightful designation — killing two birds with one stone. Again, 

 he usually took a specific name for a generic ime, and to the species thus left nameless he 

 would give a new name — scoring two for him.self again. When, as souu-times happened, these 

 two tricks fell together, he wa? enabled to write ''Bp." four times where it should not once 

 have appeared. Add to all this that lie was utterly regardless of ortliogra))hy — often wrote 

 the same name iu different way.s — ([uoted others' names so carelessly as to make them look 

 like new names — renamed the same thing often in mere forgetfulness — made genera iu Joke, 

 for a chance for a pun, or to compliment a friend — and let the most slovenly printing pa.ss — 

 with all this, I say, we have a state of things that is a disgrace t« him.self, a scandal to .sci- 

 ence, and only to be adequately characterized by the word abominable. 



The present article may stand in illustration of the justness of my censure. It is one of 

 four in which within as few years Bonaparte disarranged the Hummers. There is his article 

 in the Gonsp. Av. 1849; one in the Compt. Fend. 1850; one iu the Ann. Sc. Nat. IS.M: and 

 the present. He calls it only "the skeleton " of his .studies; we may wouder what it would 

 be if filled out. It is a mere list of the names of 80 genera and 822 species. It is impo.ssible 

 for any one who has not made a special study of the Hummers to tell which are here new 

 names and which are not. Many are here used for the first time, and many others, botli of 

 his own and of others', are used in such noyel apxjlication, or are so differently spelled, that 

 they become dejure new names. I give the following list, being those that have •Bp." ;ifter 

 them : — 



Myiaetina, Doleromyia, Leucippus, Orthornis, Guyornis, p. 249. J'j/ijiiioniis, p. 250. Lead- 

 beatera, Reliomastes, Ornithomyia, Bourcieria, p. 251. Oodigena, Lafregnaya, Ghrysohron- 

 chus, Heliotryppha (sic; Could), Eriocnemys (sic; EeiT'h.), p. 2.52. Ramphomicron, Myia- 

 beillia. Adelomyia. Florisuga, Delattria, p. 253. Cyanomyia, Amazilius. Chrysvronia. p. 2.54. 

 Saucerottia, Sporadinus. Thaumantias, Juliamyia, p. 2.55. Sapphironia, Arucettiiiux, Cepha- 

 Icpis (sic; Lodd.), Loddiggiornis. Discttra, p. 256. Thaumastina, Lophorinus, Gouldia, 

 Gouldomyia, p. 257. 



It ia directly pertinent to the subject of Bonaparte's abuse of names iu this family to refer 

 to hia other schemes, which are not formally citable in this part of my Bibliography. 



In the J.i»i. Sc. Xat., 4th ser., i, 1854, Bonaparte has inserted one of his perpetual con.spectus, 

 embracing Trochilidce. Heie he is not only at the tricks I have exposed, but commits an 

 ultra-Xapoleonic piece of fatuity, namely, citing a number of names as if Reichenbach's, 

 which the latter never published (see Elliot, Class, and Syn. Troch., 1879. p. 188). Conse- 

 quently the reproach of them falls upon Bonaparte. ^\\c]3. wee Aline, Mo8qv.eria,Lv.ciania, 

 Derbomyia, etc. 



Bonaparte was seldom thoughtful enough of the convenience of others to indicate whether 

 a "Bp." n.ime was newly proposed or not; and it is consequently not easy for any oue to 

 decide upon the original reference to be given in siu^h cases. Thus, in his ■Xote sur les 

 TrochiHdes, " in Comp. Rend, (vide supra, 1850), he has a number of luimes ; and I notice that 

 Mr. Elliot quotes this place and date as the original reference to them. Most if not all of 

 them, however, occur in his Consp. Av. of date 1849. 



Aa the latter is a general work which does not come iu this portion of my Bibliogra]>hy, I 

 wiU here give a list of the Bp. genera iu it — being those which Gray correctly attributes to 

 "Bp. 1849" in his Handlist:— 



Pha'etomis {= Phaethornis, Sw.). p. G7 ; Lafresnaya, Dory/era {=Dori/era, Gld.). p. 68; 

 Colibri, Heliotrix (~ Heliothryx,Boit), p. 69; Delattria, Leadbeatera, Heliomaster, p. 70: Cae- 

 ligena (ex. Leas), Leucippus, Bourcieria, Florisuga, p. 73; Avocettinvs, Ckrysuronia. p. 75; 

 Saucerottia, Amazilius, p. 77; Thaumatias, p. 78; Ramphomicron, p. 79; Sephanoides (ex. 

 Les.s.),p.82; CepAaJcpi«(ex. Lodd.), p. 83; 2)i«cosMra, p. 84; Tkaumast^ira, p. 85; Gouldia. j>.iG. 



1854. BouRCiER, J. Nouvelle espece dti genre Hylocliari.s [clilorocephalus]. Boie. 

 < Bev. et Mag. dc Zool. , vi, 1854, pp. 457, 458. 



