692 



BULLETIN UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 



[Vol. v. 



tillshiftiug; in short, studious and judicious systematic revision of the whole subject was impera. 

 tively demanded. If Gould's work made this 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 t^me, and subsequently, many new species were described by Lawrence. 

 In iseo, and therefore just before the period closed, Germany brought a fascicle of the Museum Heine- 

 anum to bear upon the subject, many new genera, and some new species being described by Cabanis 

 ^nd Heine. In 1863, the Trochilidica of the last-named author appeared in the J.f. 0., with a similar 

 result. In 1S66, MM. Mulsant and Verreaux's Essai d'une Classification Methodique appeared as the 

 precursor of a more elaborate work then contemplated, 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, 1861-70, saw also a fail- number of minor papers, calling, however, for no special remark 

 here. It represented flood-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 Hajidlist. 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 remem- 

 bered, 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 do- 

 cade, the accessions of new names have been fairly offset by the reduction of others to synonyms. It 

 is true that the Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux-Mouches of MM. Mulsant and Verreaux, and M. Mul- 

 saut's Catalogue— these being among the most notable publications of this period— can scarcely be 

 regarded as tending in this direction, viewing the many additional new names which they present. 

 Having seen neither of these treatises, I cannot judge of their claims to be considered as advancing or 

 improving the science. But it cannot be doubted that the patient and faithful study which Messrs. D. 

 G. Elliot and O. Salvin have of late applied to the amelioration of Trochilidine affairs has done much 

 toward the needed reform. These skilful ornithologists have published numerous papers reviewing 

 different groups of Hummers, under the most advantageous circumstances as regards handling mate- 

 rial and examining literature; and their criticisms have been of the greatest service, not only in 

 defining genera and species, but in sifting synonymy and settling nomenclature. Mr. Elliot's labors 

 have borne their final fruit in his Classification and Synopsis of the Trochilidw. However qualified a 

 success the experts may conclude this performance to be, it is certainly a gTeat boon to the working 

 ornithologist, and a faithful reflection of the present state of our knowledge respecting the exquisite 

 creatures to the elucidation of whose history it is devoted. 



With this rapid glance at the origin, progress, and present state of Trochilidine literature, I pass to 

 an alphabetical Index of the Genera of Troohilidse, the preparation of which has given me no little trou- 

 ble. I shall not regret the dn.idgery, however, if the list of names shall seem to bear out and justify 

 the remarks in which I have indulged on this point, and be of any practical use to the working orni- 

 thologist. I have taken great pains to make the list complete and accurate, having personally made 

 or verified very nearly every reference, excepting those of Mulsant and Verreaux's Histoire Naturelle, 

 and Mulsaut's Catalogue. 



Index GeiieriLm D-ochiUdariim. 



Abeillia Bp., 1849: Consp. Av., p. 79 (in text). 

 Acestrura Gould, 1861 ; Introd., 8vo, p. 91. [p, 72. 

 Aflelisca Ca«. and Heine, i860: Mus. Hein., iii, 

 .tflelomyia Bp., 1854 : liev. Mag. Zool., p. 253. 

 Agaclyta Cab. and Hein., 1860: Mus. Hein., iii, 

 Agapeta Heine, 1863: J.f. O., p. 178. [p. 70. 



Aarlaeactis Gould, 1848: P. Z. S., p. 12. [p. 69. 

 Agfaiactis Cak. and Hein., I860: Mus. Hein., iii, 

 Agyrtria Keich., 1855: Troch. Enum., p. 7. 

 AgjTtria Eeicii., " 1854." [p. 50. 



Aithunis Cab. and Hein., I860: Mus. Hein., iii, 

 Aline "Reich.", Bp., 1854: Ann. Sc. Nat, p. 137. 

 Alusia MULS., 1875: Cat. Ois.-Mouches, p. 17. 

 Amalasia Muls., 1875: Cat. Ois.-Mouches, p. 29. 

 Anialusia MuLi., 1877: Hist. O.-M., iv, p. 15. 

 Amathusia Muls. and Vekr.,1866: Glass. Troch., 

 AmaziliaKi'icH., 1849: /Sf/si. ^i;., pi. xxxix. [ij. 85. 

 Amazilicus Bp., 1850 : Compt. Rend., p. 382. 

 Amazilis Less., 1832: Ind. Gen. Troch., p. xxvii. 

 AmaziUiS Scl. and Salv., 1859. 



Amazilius Bp., 1849: Consp. Av., p. 77. 



Ametrornis Heigh., 1854: Aufz. Col., p. 14. 



Amlzilis Gray. 



Anactorla Eeich., 1854: Aufz. Col., p. 12. 



Anais "Bp., 1854." {Ubi?) 



Androdon Godld, 1863: Ann. Mag. N. H., 2d ser., 



xii,p. 246. 

 Anisoterus Muls. andVERK., 1873: Hist. Nat. O.- 



M., i, p. 72. 

 Anthocephala Cab. and Hein., I860: Mus. Hein., 



iii, p. 72. 

 Anthracothorax Boie, 1831 : Isis, p. 545. 

 Aphantochroa Gould, 1853 : Monog., pt. vi. 

 Arctailochus Eeich., 1855: Troch. Enum., p. 10. 

 Ariana Muls. and Verr., 1866 ; Class. Troch., p. 36. 

 Arinia Muls., 1877: Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, Oct., 

 Aspasta Hein., 163 : J.f. O., p. 179. [1877, p. — . 



Atthis Eeich., 1854: Aufz. Col., p. 12. 

 Augasma Gould, "MS." 

 Augaste Muls. and Veru., 1666. 



