How to cite a method that has a huge history of contributors? I’m finishing my first paper, and am struggling with the citations a bit. 

I have used a particular implementation of an algorithm. 
The citation of those who thought of this particular variation and implementation of the algorithm is clear, but should I also include the creators of the original idea, and not just the implementation that I use? 

In the case of genetic algorithms, seems like a tower where quite a lot of people have worked on (see Wikipedia for a short history), and it isn’t really clear who put the first or most important stone. Most people cite the work of J. Holland who popularized it, but that also doesn’t really feel right, since I wouldn’t give credit to all the others. On the other hand I don’t want to spend half a page repeating the history of the idea, citing 15 papers or so.

Some options that crossed my mind:


Is it enough to refer to the name of the idea (of which the detailed history is quite accessible such in the example)? 
A huge list of citations [5,6,7,8,...,20]. 
Referring to a source that has a nice overview of the history.


What would you advise?
To cite a body of work large enough to have generated textbooks or comprehensive review papers, you should cite a good recent textbook or comprehensive review paper.
You may not need to, however, depending on why and how you are using the algorithm.
The key is to provide the reader with everything they need to know about why you chose that algorithm and the significance of the choice.

In this case, if your work is focused on genetic algorithms and/or their applications, then you should position it within the comprehensive space of genetic algorithms work.  You would then cite both the textbook/review sources and the more specific "nearby" pieces to compare it to.

In the other hand, if your work is focused on an application, it's its more just about needing some tool and you happened to find genetic algorithms promising, then you don't need the comprehensive references because that's not the point.  Instead,
if you chose Algorithm X for particular reasons, then you should explain why you didn't pick competitor Algorithms Y, Z, and W (citing each). If you just chose Algorithm X because you thought that probably any algorithm would likely do, then be clear about that fact and don't worry about positioning it within a larger field, because honestly you haven't.