iro.4.] COUES'S ORNITH. IJIBLIOGRAPHY TROCHILID^. 691 



■but the Histoire Xafiirelle des Colibris et des OUeauz-mouches Ibi-med a large part of the iiudertaking. 

 Scientiflc names were not used in the (Ms. Dor.; but a technical nomenclature of the subjects of the 

 work was furnished by Vicillot in 1817. 



The first great illustrated work on Hummers exclusively was Lesson's, published in parts, from 1829 

 to 1832, the parts being afterward grouped in three separately titled volumes. This author described 

 and figured in colors upward of 100 (about 110) species, many of which were actually new, and to many 

 more of whicli new names were given. A very few genera, additional to or in place of Brisson's, had 

 meanwhile been proposed ; but Lesson was the first to introduce any considerable number of new 

 generic names. Many of those, however, which Gray and others have since cited as generic, were 

 certainly not used or intended as such by Lesson, being simply vema<'alar designations of certain 

 "tribes" and Taces" among whicli he distributed the Trochilidce: sueh words as "Bleuets" and 

 "Queues 6troites", for example. French authors were (and I think many of them still are) such 

 sinners in spelling, that it is not always easy to say what words of theirs they would have us take as 

 technical. Possessing a copious and voluble vocabulary, largely supplemented by gesture-speech, or 

 shrug-language, and violating in their articulation the usual powers of written characters, they not only 

 acquired a trick of Gallicizing technical words, but they also cultivated a chariRteristic habit of rising 

 superior to orthography. If Vieillot could write Cripsirina for Gryptorhina without flinching, we 

 need not wonder that Les.stm invented Ornismya, which he defended as against Ornithomyia, or that 

 some of his successors reached the height of Omysmia! 



The Hummers have always been objects of study peculiarly agreeable to French ornithologists. 

 Their daintiness, so to speak, seems to suit the national genius. French literature, therefore, figures 

 in the written history of these birds to an extent greater than that obsei-vable in any other family of 

 birds. About the time we have reached, however, several English names became prominent in the 

 present connection : as those of Swainson, Vigors, Loddiges, and especially Jardine — for Gould had not 

 then begun the work which was afterward to identify his name with Trochilidine literature. Swain- 

 son had already classified the Hummers as a part of his general scheme, describing some new species 

 and establishing certain genera. In 1833, and thus upon the heels of Lesson's memoirs, Sir- William 

 Jardine prepared his monography, to the valuable and agreeable text of which Lizars contributed 

 beautiful illustrations. The home of the Hummers was heard from the same year in La Llave's Memo- 

 ria; and Schreibers's Collectanea of same date consisted only of these birds. From this time until the 

 beginning of Gould's great work in 1849 appeared no monographic treatise on Trochilidce. But the 

 period was one of great activity, among both English and French writers ; the accumulation of mate- 

 rial was rapid and incessant, and many papers of these years described new genera and species, though 

 too often hastOy and inadequately. In England, Gould and Eraser were busy with their materials. 

 In France, the writings of Lesson continued ; Bourcier became prominent in the number of his papers; 

 while Boissoneau, De Lattre, Gervais, Longuemare and others made their respective contributions. 

 This was the period of accumulation rather than of elaboration ; numberless new names were intro- 

 duced, but among them were many synonyms, both generic and specific ; little or no systematic revi- 

 sion of the subject being effected, unless Gould's Draft Arrangement, the precursor of his Monograph. 

 be considered of such character. 



The thirteen years, 1849-61, during which Gonld's work was pending, marked the next period in the 

 history of the subject. The preparation of this great work held its author, already recognized as the 

 leading Trochilidist, to his .subject ; and the ajjpearance of successive parts served as a continual stim- 

 ulus to others to move in the same direction. The author published many papers describing cursorily 

 new objects about to be depicted in his magnificent folios ; and several French ornithologists, notably 

 Bourcier and Mulsant, were little behind him in this respect. The period was also marked by the 

 appearance in England of Martin's General History, in some sense a continuation of Jardine's work. 

 It was furthermore characterized by the malignant epidemic which we may call the genus-itch ; 

 which broke out simultaneously in 1849, from two foci of contagion, in France and in Germany, and 

 proved disastrous in the extreme. The infection reappeared in an aggravated form in 1854, and Tro- 

 chilidine literature has never entirely recovered from its effect. 



Many genera of Hummers, notably Swainson's, Lesson's, and Gould's, had been found acceptable, 

 and, indeed, necessary ; but the most embarrassing results attended the steps of some authors who 

 coined names on the glancing of a feather in this beautiful group of birds. As just stated, serious diffi- 

 culty began in 1849, in those parts of Bonaparte's Conspectus and of Eeichenbachs Systema which treat 

 oi Trochilidce ; and in 1854 each of these authors increased it immeasurably, the one in his Tableau, the 

 other in his Aufz'dhlung. But I have on previous pages sulficiently commented upon this mattei'. 



The completion of Gould's splendid monument closed this period of accumulation. The .subject had 

 grown rapidly, and had become unmanageable. Some authors had simply amused themselves in " play- 

 ing chess" with the names of Hummers, and many had pressed forward with new species upon insuf- 

 ficient examination of known material, or inadequate regard for what others had published. The fog 

 of synonymy had completely enveloped the subject. It was hazardous to enter it. and it seemed almost 

 hopeless to attempt to lift it. The Monograph represented, therefore, rather a broad and secure basis 

 for future investigation than any final accomplishment. It gave a series of 360 colored plates of about 

 as many species, real or nominal, with accompanying descriptive letter- press ; other species added in 

 the Introduction raising the total to 416, referred to 123 genera. But many new names, generic and 

 specific, were still to see the light; many others were to sink into synonymy ; the nomenclatiu'e was 



