PREFACE. ^ y 



8. (1874)- Tbe Genus IIelianthea, p. 330. 



9. (1875). The Ueuera, Culokostilbon and Fanyculora, p. 149. 



10. (187G). Kemarks on some T^'pe Specimens of 'i'luehilidaj from the Museums of Neuchatel and 



Florence, p. 5. 



11. (1876). The Ueuus Lampropygia, p. 54. 



12. (1870). The Genera Cyanomyia and Heliotuypha, p. 311. 



13. (1876). The Genera Heliotiiujx, Calliphlox, Catiiau.ma, aud I'eta.sopiiora d .304 



14. (1877). Review of the Specimens of Trochilidaj in the Pari.s Museum brunght by U'Orbigny 



from South America, p. 133. 



15. (1878). The Genus Tuau.matias, Gould (uec Ecshsh., 1829, ncc Bon., 1850), p. 35. 



As some of these Gouera will not be met with in the present Synopsis, having 

 been obliged to give way to others possessing the right to priority, or else deemed 

 unnecessary, it will be understood that, as employed in the various papers above 

 mentioned, they are intended to represent the Genera used by ^Mr. Gould in 

 his Monograph of the Trochilidae. The memoirs having been written for the 

 purpose of critically reviewing the species that had beeo described, the Genera were 

 taken as given by the above-mentioned Ornithologist. In the present work, both 

 Genera and Species have been critically examined, and it has been found necessary 

 to make some important and very unexpected changes, especially in the first of 

 these divisions ; but it is believed that in every instance a satisfactory explanation 

 is given for thus deviating from the course, which, when judged by the law of 

 priority, had been ascertained to be incorrect, although perhaps sanctioned in 

 some degree by custom. — In every case also, a genus that was in use has been 

 dropped, when found to have been previously employed in some other branch of 

 zoology. The synonymy is that which, in the majority of cases, refers to a passage 

 in the work cited, that gives some desirable information regarding the species. 

 I have not endeavored to make this "exhaustive," as the term is used now-a-days 

 ill many instances, and consequently many lists of names and nothing else, and 

 also works where the name of the species alone occurs without any information of 

 importance attached to it, will not be found quoted. The chief exceptions to this 

 are tlie lists of Bonaparte and Ileicheubacli, which, on account of the many genera 

 first proposed in them, could not be passed over. The value of synonymy has not 

 been deemed to consist in its great length. — The same may be said of the descrij)- 

 tions of the species. Usually one of a genus has been pretty thoroughly described, 

 but I have thought it best, in the majority of instances, to give siii-q)ly the differ- 

 ences that may exist in allied species, instead of going over the entire plinnagc, as 

 this merely necessitates endless repetitions that would speedily become wearisome, 

 and serve no useful purpose. Verbose and complicated descriptions have been 

 carefully avoided, for it is not impossible that, after plodding through such a one, 

 the bewildered reader on arriving at the termination has lost all track of the 



