XV 
then we pass over a period of five years, without finding anything worthy of note, to 1807, 
when Levaillant published his beautiful work ‘ Ilistoire Naturelle des Promerops et des Guepiers,’ 
in which twenty-one folio illustrations of the Bee-eaters were issued with accompanying letter- 
press, but no scientific names were given. All these plates are readily recognizable, except in 
the case of Levaillant’s Guepier adanson (pi. 13), which is depicted as somewhat resembling 
Merops bicolor, but having a red tail ; and, so far as I can judge, the plate must have been 
drawn from a made-up skin, as no such bird has ever been found by subsequent ornithologists. 
In 1817, Vieillot (Nouv. Diet. d’Hist. Nat. vol. xiv.) gave the specific names of albicollis to 
Levaillant’s Guepier a gorge blanche ou le Guepier Cuvier (pi. 9), of quinticolor ( Melittophagus 
quinticolor ) to his Guepier quinticolor (pi. 15), of leschenaulti ( Melittophagus leschena,ulli) to his 
Guepier laichenot (pi. 18), and of bulocki ( Melittophagus bullocki ) to his Guepier a gorge rouge ou 
le Guepier hillock (pi. 20). 
Passing over a space of four years, we find Merops sumatranus described by Baffles in 1821 
(Trans. Linn. Soc. xiii. p. 294), and in 1824 Temminck (PL Col. no. 310) figured and described 
Nyctiornis amictus. 
Until 1828 the Bee-eaters were all included in one and the same genus, that of Merops , but 
in that year Boie (Isis, 1828, p. 316) proposed the generic title of Melittophagus for the small 
Bee-eaters which have the tail even, lacking the elongation on the central rectrices ; and this 
genus is one that I consider should stand ; and in the same article Boie also gave the specific 
name of sonnini to Melittophagus sonninii. In 1829 (111. Orn. ii. pi. 58) Jardine and Selby figured 
and described Nyctiornis athertoni ; and in 1831-32, Swainson (Zool. 111. 2nd ser. vol. ii.) pro- 
posed the generic title of Nyctiornis for the two large square-tailed Bee-eaters having the 
elongated pectoral plumes (N. amictus and N. athertoni), and in the same volume he also gave a 
second generic title, Nyctinomus, for the same species, Isidore Geofiroy St.-Hilaire, about the 
same time, in 1832 (Nouv. Ann. du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. i.), proposing the title of Alcemerops for 
this small group ; whereas in 1836 (J. As. Soc. Beng. v. p. 360) Hodgson proposed the generic 
name of Sucia, and again, in 1841 (J. As. Soc. Beng. x. p. 29), that of Napophila, for the same 
group. In 1834, Smith (S. Afr. Quart. Journ. 2nd ser. part ii. p. 320) described Melittophagus 
bullockoides, which species was also figured by him in the 111. Zool. S. Afr., Aves, pi. ix. 
Guerin in 1843 (Bev. Zool. 1843, p. 322) first gave the generic title of lafresnayei to Melitto- 
phagus lafresnayei, which species was figured in 1847 in the Atlas to Perret and Galinier’s 
‘Voyage en Abyssinie,’ pi. 15. 
In 1846 Des Murs (Bev. Zool. 1846, p. 243) separated the Carmine-throated Bee-eater from 
Merops nubicus, with which it had up to then been united, giving the specific name of nubicoides, 
which it still retains, to the former. I may here point out a mistake in my synonymy of this 
species, for I have inadvertently placed amongst the list of titles that of Merops superbus, Vieillot 
(Nouv. Diet. xiv. p. 23, 1817), which is a synonym of Merops nubicus and not of M. nubicoides . 
In 1849 Sundevall (CEfv. K. Vet.-Ak. Forh. 1849, p. 162) proposed to separate Melittophagus 
gularis from its allies, and to give it the generic title of Meropiscus ; but I cannot agree with him 
in so doing, and consider that it ought to be retained amongst those species grouped together 
under the genus Melittophagus. Bonaparte, in his ‘ Conspectus generum Avium,’ i. p. 164, 
published in 1850 a description of Forsten’s Bee-eater, which until then bore only the MS. name, 
given to it by Temminck, of forsteni, which name Bonaparte also retained, and at the same time 
very rightly separated it generically from its allies, bestowing on it the title of Meropogon. 
In 1852 Beichenbach (‘ Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie,’ Meropince, pp. 61-83) gave a 
