10 PREFACE 



to standardize nomenclature. Certain American publishers for ex- 

 ample have sought to fix upon the correct generic names for the desig- 

 nation of certain micro5rganisms, but apparently with no clear con- 

 ception of the rules which should govern such standardization. 



A study of the catalogs of various colleges and universities in the 

 United States in which bacteriology is being taught at the present 

 time reveals the fact that in very few cases are courses offered in which 

 there is any emphasis placed upon systematic bacteriology and phy- 

 logeny. An examination of the courses offered in other biological 

 sciences would show very different conditions. Another factor which 

 has undoubtedly tended to confuse nomenclature in this science is 

 the fact that until recent years most bacteriologists received their 

 training in medical schools. During their medical course they were 

 familiarized with several systems of nomenclature used in other sciences. 

 In anatomy, for example, agreement is rapidly being reached that for 

 each organ and anatomical unit a single international Latin name shall 

 be adopted, and the student becomes familiar with the general rules 

 for the formation of such names. In pathology and medicine diseases 

 are designated in much the same fashion, a descriptive Latin phrase, 

 frequently consisting of several words, is used. It is exceptional for 

 the teacher in bacteriology to emphasize the fact that systems of names 

 used in anatomy and pathologj^ are utterly different and based upon 

 other rules than those used in naming living plants and animals. Many 

 of the polynomials which cumber our bacteriological literature have 

 been applied by workers who do not have such distinctions in mind. 

 By far the most important factor which has determined the attitude 

 of teachers and investigators toward this problem has been the lack 

 of a really adequate system of group differentiation, of classification. 

 It has taken bacteriological systematists a long time to realize that 

 such group differentiation (the separation of species and genera), 

 upon other than morphological differences, may be wholly valid. The 

 botanical bacteriologist has ignored physiology which is so important. 

 The physiological bacteriologist has, in many cases, not possessed the 

 background of the systematist. The latter worker may point out the 

 characters which should be used, but finds difficulty in their practical 

 application to the specific problems of taxonomy. 



The most hopeful sign of importance in this respect probably, has 

 been the work of the committee on taxonomy of bacteria of the Society 

 of American Bacteriologists under the chairmanship of Dr. Winslow, 



