No.i.] COUES'.S ORNITIT. BIBLIOGRAPHY TROCHILID^E. 689 



1379. Elliot, D. G. — Coutiuucd. 



1878, to p. 40; Aug., 1878, to p. 80; Sept., 1878, to p. 136; Oct., 1878, to p. 144; Nov., 1878, to 

 p. 160 ; Dec, 1878, to p. 208 ; Jan., 1879, to p. 248 ; appendix and furnishings, March, 1870. 



This gi-eat work treats formally of the genera and species of the family, giving extensive 

 synonymy, description, habitat, and general comment in nearly every case. It is evidently 

 prepared with care, hy one exceptionally familiar with a subject so fascinating and so pecu- 

 liarly difficult as is that of the present family. It is a monograph in a high sense of that 

 term, and one which places the matter in a state more satisfactory than that in which it had 

 been left by Gould and other leading specialists. 



The author rocogiiizes 120 genera in this family, making a very judicious reduction in num- 

 ber from the 339 ! generic names mentioned in the work ; no fewer than 219 being reduced to 

 synonyms. In like conservative manner, the species regarded as valid are 426 in number, ou-^, 

 of 880 nominal ones which the author accounts for, leaving 454, or more than half, as syno- 

 nyms. Such treatment as this is prima facie evidence of the merit of the author's work and 

 trustworthiness of his results ; for a similar reduction of nominal species is the usual result of 

 a critical study of the current lists of species and genera in nearly every group in ornithology. 

 There is a running commentary through the work on the systematic position and relations 

 of the generic forms ; and analyses of the species of each genus, greatly facilitating their de- 

 termination. • 



Nearly all the genera, at least, and some of the leading specific forms, are illustrated by out- 

 line figures of head, wing, and tail, showing details of external form. There are 127 such 

 figures, or, on an average, a little more than one to each genus treated. 



The author's previous study of this group may bo inferred from the list of 15 papers, either 

 by himself alone or in joint authorship with Salvin, published in the Ibis, 1872-1878 (see above 

 for these). These papers discuss, more at length than the present Synopsis does, the occa- 

 sion for maay of the author's conclusions, particularly in the matter of nomenclature and 

 synonymy. 



New names proposed are: Floricola, p. 82, Callipharus, p. 211, umllachc. p. 234, genn. nn. ; 

 Petasophora ruhrigularis, p. 51, and Sou reieria assimilis, p. 78, spp. nn. 



Extracts from the Preface will further elucidate the plan and scope of the work:— " In the 

 following Synopsis I have given every species of Humming-bird known to me, that in my 

 opinion is entitled to a separate rank, and even of these, it is possible that future information 

 wiU compel us to place some of them among the synonymes of others. Although the Family 

 contains a certain number of groups, composed of species having more or less relationship 

 ■with each other, I have not seen my way very clear to the recognition of any subfamilies as has 

 been done by other writers. . . . In the present Synopsis, the recognition of genera has been 

 carried to the farthest limit that seemed practicable, and in every case it has been attempted to 

 give structural characters for the genera which have been acknowledged. . . . The arrange- 

 ment here given of the species composing this Family is, I am aware, very diflerent from all those 

 heretofore proposed. It is not, however, the result of guess or imagination, but has been 

 arrived at by a careful comparison of the different species themselves, for of the 426 acknowl- 

 edged as distmct in this Synopsis, about 380 are continued in the great collection, by the assist- 

 ance of which this book has been written, and of the remaining ones, with but few exceptions, 

 I have carefully examined the types. . . . I^ 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 thj course, which, 

 when judged by the law of priority, had been ascertained to be incorrect, although perhaps 

 sanctioned in some degree by custom. . . . The synonymy is that which, in the majority 

 of cases, refers to a passage in the work cited, that gives some desirable information regard-. 

 iu'T the species. . . . The chief exceptions to this are the lists of Bonaparte and Eeichen- 

 bach, 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 descriptions of the species. Usually one of a genus has been pretty thoroughly 

 described, but I have thought it best, in the majority of cases, to give simply the differences 

 that may exist in allieil species, . . . The asterisk, placed before the names of certain spe- 

 cies indicates that it [i. e., the species in mention] is not contained in my collection. . . . 

 The drawings which illustrate tlie generic characters, are with few exceptions, all made from 

 specimens contained in my collection." And I may add, as the author omits to do so, that 

 that they were all drawn by Mr. R. Eidgway. 



This "Classification and Synopsis of the TrochiUdpe" is likely to supplant previous mono- 

 graphs as the leading authority on the subject. 

 1879. SCLATER, P. L. [Thaiimasius taczanowskii, g. sp. u.,Peru.] < P. Z. S., Feb, 

 18, 1879, pp. 145, 146. 



The genus Thaumasius, though intended as an emendation of Thaumatias, is in effect a 

 new genus : see Ibis, 1879, p. 451. 



