yo.4.] COUES'S ORNITH. BIBLIOGEAPHY TEOCHILID^. 691 



but the Histoii-e Xaturelle des Colibris et des Oiseaux-mouches formed a large part of the nudertakinf . 

 Scientitic names were uot used in the Ois. Dor.,- but a technical nomenclature of the subjs^cts of the 

 work was furnished by Vieillot iu 1817. 



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

 to 1832, the parts being afterward grouped m 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 which new names were given. A very few genera, additional to or in place of Brisson's, had 

 meanwhUe been proposed: but Lesson was the first to mtroduce any considerable number of new 

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

 certamly not used or intended as such by Lesson, being simply vernacular designations of certain 

 "tribes" and '^races" among which he distributed the TrocMlidce: such words as "Bleueta" 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 then- articulation the usual powers of written characters, they not only 

 acquired a trick of GaUicizing technical words, but they also cultivated a characteristic habit of rising 

 superior to orthography. If Vieillot could write Gripsinna for Gryptorhina without flinohino-, we 

 need not wonder that Lesson invented Ornismya, which he defended as against Ornithomyia, or that 

 some of his successors reached the height of Ornysmia ! 



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

 Theii daintiness, so to speak, seems to suit the national genius. French literature, therefore, figiu'es 

 in the written history of these birds to an extent greater than that observable 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 Jardiue— for Gould had not 

 then begun the work which was afterward to identify his name with Trochilidiue literatirre. 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 

 Jardiae 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 iu 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 monogTaphic treatise on TrocMlidce. 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 hastily and inadequately. In England, Gould and Eraser were busy with their materials. 

 In Prance, 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 beiug effected, unless Gould's Draft Arrangement, the precursor of his Monograph, 

 be considered of such character. 



The thirteen years, 1849-61, during which Gould's work was pending, marked the next period iu 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 appearance 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 m'arked by the 

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

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

 which broke out simultaneously in 1849, from two foci of contac,'ion, in France and in Germanv, and 

 proved disastrous in the extreme. The infection reappeared in an aggravated form in 18.54, and Tro- 

 chilidiue literature has never entirely recovered from its effect. 



Many genera of Hummers, notably Swaiuson's, Lesson's, and Gould's, had been found accejitable, 

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

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

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

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

 other in his Aufzcihlung. 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 unmanagealile. 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 Mnnogra2)h 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 l7itroduction 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 nomenclature was 



