THE HUMMING BIRDS. 261 



the same directiou. The author published many papers describing cursorily now ob- 

 jects about to be depicted in his magnificent folios, and several French ornitholo- 

 gists, 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 simul- 

 taneously 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 Trochilidine 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 beau- 

 tiful group of birds. As just stated, serious difficulty began in 1849, in those parts of 

 Bonaparte's Conspectus and of Reichenbach's Systema which treat of Trochilidce; and 

 in 1854 each of these authors increased it immeasurably, the one in his Tableau, the 

 other in his Aufzcililung. But I have on previous pages sufficiently commented upon 

 this matter. 



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 "playing chess" with the names of Hummers, and 

 many had pressed forward with new species upon insufficient 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 accomplish- 

 ment. It gave a series of 360 colored plates of about as many species, real or nomi- 

 nal, with accompanying descriptive letter-press, other species added in the Intro- 

 duction 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 syn- 

 onymy; the nomenclature was still shifting; in short, studious and judicious syste- 

 matic revision of the whole subject was imperatively demanded. If Gould's work 

 made thie necessity apparent, it also immeasurably contributed to the desired result. 



Previous to this Gouldian period American writers did next to nothing for the 

 special literature of the family; but during this time and subsequently many new 

 species were described by Lawrence. In 1860, and therefore just before the period 

 closed, Germany brought a fascicle of the Museum Heineanum to bear upon the 

 subject, many new genera and some new species being described by Cabanis and 

 Heine. In 1863 the Trochilidica of the last-named author appeared in the J. f. O., 

 with a similar result. In 1866 MM. Mulsant and Verreaux's Essai d'une Classification 

 Methodique appeared as the precursor of a more elaborate work then contem- 

 plated, containing fresh accessions to the number of genera with which the family 

 was destined to be burdened and a rearrangement of the whole group. This decade, 

 1861-1870, saw also a fair number of minor papers, calling, however, for no special 

 remark here. It represented Hood-tide in the mere describing of species, and their 

 rearrangement in futile genera ; the ebb necessarily followed. 



The state of the case at that moment was faithfully reflected in Gray's Handlist. 

 This catalogued 469 species, real or nominal, distributed in 163 genera or subgenera 

 and carrying a load of synonymy amounting in the aggregate to perhaps 800 specific 

 and 300 generic names. This, it will be remembered, is irrespective of the endless 

 combinations of generic and specific names which, were they counted, might represent 

 a total of several thousand binomial names which have been imposed upon a family 

 of birds consisting of few more than 400 known species, conveniently referable to 

 about one-fourth as many modern genera! 



Such a state of things as this inevitably tended toward a healthy reaction ; and 

 during the last decade the accessions of new names have been fairly offset by the re- 



