PROSPECTS FOR A NATURAL SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF BACTERIA 



opinion Orla-Jensen's contribution to systematics - the prominent 

 place assigned to rightly evaluated physiological characters - marks 

 a milestone in the development of bacterial taxonomy. 



In their entirety Orla-Jensen's views have never been accepted. It 

 is the merit of Buchanan to have advocated a system of classification 

 in which a limited use has been made of Orla-Jensen's ideas. In 

 subdividing the order of the Eubacteriales Buchanan recognizes one 

 family exclusively on the basis of physiological characteristics. The 

 autotrophic nitrifying bacteria which Orla-Jensen considered as re- 

 presentatives of the most primitive among micro-organisms were here 

 united in the family Nitrobacteriaceae. 



Buchanan's system was more or less the foundation of that which 

 soon afterwards evolved out of the work of a committee appointed by 

 the Society of American Bacteriologists, of which Buchanan originally 

 was a member. For a description of the development of the work of 

 this committee we may refer to the data presented in Buchanan's 

 [1925] most valuable, exhaustive monograph on bacterial systematics. 

 It may suffice to state that the results have ultimately been laid down 

 in Bergey's [1923, 1925, 1930, 1934] well-known Manual of Deter- 

 minative Bacteriology. In the following discussion we will therefore 

 limit ourselves to a criticism of the system as developed in the last 

 edition of this book. As for the earlier editions we will only remark 

 that in these - especially in the first one - the tentative character of the 

 outlined system was duly emphasized in the preface. Gradually the 

 attitude of the editing committee has, however, changed and has grown 

 more and more self-confident, probably owing to the commercial 

 success of the book. This should be regretted because the publication 

 of this cooperative effort has led to an abundance of sound criticism 

 which might have been usefully incorporated in later editions. By 

 ignoring this criticism the benificial effect which might have resulted 

 from the cooperative character of the work - the first formal coopera- 

 tion in the history of bacterial taxonomy - has been more or less nulli- 

 fied. 



The final outcome can best be described as a compromise between 

 the most divergent ideas which have been expressed in the course of 

 time. Anyone who has had the opportunity to peruse the book will 

 have been struck by the fact that morphological, physiological, nomen- 

 clative, utilitarian, cultural and pathogenic properties have been used 



293 



