4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 74 



The new generic name came into use almost at once. Bonaparte, 

 writing in 1850, placed 10 species under it, 2 of which he described 

 as neAv; but not all of those he included are now considered mem- 

 bers of the group, while he failed to recognize some others as prop- 

 erly belonging here. Four years later he added another species, 

 Basileuter-us delattrii., from Nicaragua, The firet attempt to treat 

 the genus from the monographic point of view was by Sclater, in 

 the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1865 (pp. 

 282-28G). Here he listed 15 forms known to him, giving colored 

 figures of four of them, with diagnoses and references. Ho had already 

 described four new species between 1860 and 1864, and gave another 

 in this last paper. Baird's review of the group appeared about the 

 same time. He treated the seven species recognized from north of 

 Panama at some length, and gave a list of 11 others from South 

 America. Besides describing one species as new, he set up a new 

 subgenus, Idiotes, based on Setophaga rnififrons of Swainson as type. 

 His critical discussion of the characters and relationships of Basileu- 

 teruf and related genera was well brought out, and may still be con- 

 sulted with profit. He recognized 3I>/iofMi/pis Cabanis as a good 

 genus, and assigned to it a provisional new species, flaveoliis, de- 

 scribed from a single specimen from Paraguay. {MyiothJypis had 

 been originally based on Trlchas nigrocristatus Lafresnaye, with 

 which Bonaparte had associated his Trichas luteoviridis, while Ca- 

 banis had described a Myiothlypis striaticeps in 1873.) 



In the next 20 years no less than 10 new species were described 

 by various authors, and of these names only one is now rated as a 

 synonym. This brings us to Sharpe's review of the genus, which 

 appeared in volume 10 of the " Catalogue of the Birds in the British 

 Museum.'' He recognized 32 species and 3 additional '' subspecies," 

 of which total of 35 forms 5 are here described and named for the 

 first time. Sharpe's descriptions are as always carefully drawn up: 

 his lists of references are reasonably full, and his names generally 

 acceptable. Yet his treatment of the group, standing as it does for 

 the latest revision available to the student, is open to criticism in 

 one important respect. The sequence of the species is not natural, 

 related forms being widely separated. The " key to the species " 

 is likewise highly artificial, and as a practical aid in identification 

 is of little use, since it will not work. No real idea of the interrela- 

 tionships of the various forms of this genus can be obtained from 

 a study of Sharpe's paper. 



Coming down to the present century, we find the Middle American 

 forms comprehensively and carefully treated by Mr. Ridgway in his 

 " Birds of North and Middle America,'' ' He offers also some perti- 



^ Bulletin 50, U. S. National Museum, pt. L', 11)02. pp. 7:iS-758. 



