Bacteria and Viruses 749 



Appendix C. Opinions 1-5. 



OPINIONS ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION 



OPINION 1 



Spelling of the specific epithet in Bacillus megaterium deBary 

 The spelling megaterium of the specific epithet in Bacillus megaterium deBary 

 1884 is to be preferred to the spelling megatherium. 

 (Internatl. Bull. Bact. Nomen. and Tax. 7:35-36. 1951) 



OPINION 2 



Stems (combining forms) of -bacterium, -bactrum, -bactron, and -bacter 

 The combining form or stem of the last component of names ending in -bac- 

 terium is -bacteri, of those ending in -bactrum or -bactron is -bactr, and of 

 those ending in -bacter is -bacter. Family names derived from such generic 

 names have respectively the endings -bacteriaceae, -bactraceae and -bac- 

 teraceae. 

 (Internatl. Bull. Nomen. and Tax. 7:37-38. 1951) 



OPINION 3 



Gender of bacterial names that end in -bacter 

 The names of bacterial genera which end in -bacter should be regarded as 

 having the masculine gender. 



(Internatl. Bull. Bact. Nomen. and Tax. 7:84-85. 1951) 



OPINION 4 (Revised) 



Rejection of generic name Bacterium Ehrenberg 

 The bacterial generic name Bacterium Ehrenberg 1828 is to be recognized as 

 a nomen genericum rejiciendum (rejected generic name). The bacterial family 

 name Bacteriaceae is to be recognized as a nomen familiae rejiciendum 

 (rejected family name). 

 (Internatl. Bull. Bact. Nomen. and Tax. 4:\42. 1954) 



OPINION 5 



Conservation of the Generic Name 



Pseudomonas Migula 1894 and Designation of 



Pseudomonas aeruginosa 

 (Schroeter) Migula 1900 As Type Species 



The Editorial Board published a Preliminary Statement (File No. 

 7) relative to the status of the generic name Pseudomonas Migula 

 1894 and to the designation of the type species. Three proposals were 

 submitted to the members of the Judicial Commission. 



The first proposal was approved by twelve Commissioners, it was 

 disapproved by none, and two Commissioners did not vote. 



The second proposal was approved by twelve Commissioners, it 

 was disapproved by none, two Commissioners did not vote. 



The third proposal was approved by eleven Commissioners, two 

 Commissioners did not vote, and one Commissioner stated that in his 



