GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 111 



2. Following the precedent of Linnaeus, every plant or animal, therefore, 

 every microorganism must have two Latin names : the first designating the genus 

 to which the organism in question belongs, this name being a substantive; the 

 second indicating the species, which name is an adjective (not two) or the genitive 

 of a substantive, or rarely a substantive in the nominative case. 



Comment. The first two rules are basic, and generally accepted in 

 all codes. 



3. Genera must only be founded upon important morphologic character- 

 istics; so called "biologic genera," such as Photobacterium for all light-emitting 

 bacteria, Pyohacterium for rods causing suppuration, etc., are only calculated 

 to produce confusion. 



Comment. Modern tendency in bacteriology is to disregard this rule 

 in part. Many valid genera are recognized at present in which physio- 

 logic as well as morphologic characters are used for purposes of diagnosis 

 and differentiation. 



4. As a designation for species many authors have used, instead of one adjec- 

 tive or substantive, a plurality of adjectives, evidently with the object of furnish- 

 ing a description through the name : Bacillus rosettaceus metalloides, Staphylococ- 

 cus pyogenes aureus, Bacillus pyogenes foeddus, Bacillus mesentericus panis 

 viscosi I and II. This effort can be understood, but it has been abandoned as 

 entirely impracticable by all descriptive naturalists since Linnaeus. The name 

 of the species should indicate this unequivocally; the characterization belongs 

 to the description. It does no harm if two or more organisms possess names 

 which mean the same, if they do not sound alike. In addition to a Micrococcus 

 albus, a Micro, niveus, Micro, albissimus, Micro, candicans, and a Micro, purus, 

 may all be quite valid; we must look to the description to determine the exact 

 differences which exist among these white cocci. 



5. Names which have been formed improperly, i.e., contrary to the binomial 

 rule, may be replaced. We have done this with the greatest consideration for the 

 existing name whenever possible. We have not changed names like Bacillus 

 acidi lactici, because acidum lacticum represents a single idea, and names like 

 Sempervivum Reginae Amaliae, Pedicularis Friderici Augusti, Trigonella Foenum 

 Graecum, Pedicularis Sceptrum carolinum have remained, although certainly not 

 convenient, still uncontested. 



6. If names are properly formed in the binomial manner and correctly pub- 

 lished, then they must not be changed by the author himself, much less by others, 

 even if subsequently another appears better. Furthermore, the fact that a name 

 is philologically incorrect or not beautiful, is no adequate reason for change. 

 Even, for example, if it were literally more correct to call the genus we have 

 named "Mycobacterium" by the new name " Tuberculomyces," such a proposition 

 is absolutely unallowable. Renaming is required only when the name given was 

 employed earlier with another signification. Thus, Cohn founded upon a cer- 

 tain organism the new genus Streptothrix, without knowing that Corda, about 

 thirty years previously had conferred this name upon a fungus totally different 



