112 GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 



from the one which he described. His new species, therefore, must receive a new 

 genus name which he who first observed Cohn's oversight is justified in 

 establishing. 



7. It may happen that an author differs from his predecessor as to the bound- 

 aries of certain genera, and he, therefore, transfers a species from one genus into 

 another, either one which previously existed or which is newly formed by himself. 

 This is permissible; nevertheless the designation of the species must not be 

 changed. So we had the right when we broke up the very large genus Bacillus, 

 following the suggestion of Hiippe, into the two genera Bacillus and Bacterium, 

 to rename a number of species (for example. Bacillus pyocyaneus renamed Bac- 

 terium pyocaneum), but we did not have the right, however much we disliked the 

 species name pyocyaneum, to rename the organism Bacterium coeruleo-viride or 

 Bacterium gessardi or anything else. 



8. The author who names the genus places his name after the name given. 

 We speak of Bacillus Cohn, and mean the genus Bacillus as Cohn established it; 

 of Vibrio Ehrenberg emend. Loeffler, and mean the genus Vibrio as established 

 by Ehrenberg and afterward more accurately described by Loeffler. 



9. Whoever discovers a new species or names one not previously named 

 gives it a genus and a species name, and places his own name after the latter. 

 Fliigge, who first named a large number of bacteria, gave, for example, the name 

 Bacillus pyocyaneus Fliigge, to the long known cause of bluish green suppuration. 



10. When one places a species in a new genus he puts his own name after the 

 new name, thus. Bacterium pyocyaneum Lehmann and Neumann, but it is always 

 to be recommended that he add in parentheses, the name of the author who first 

 named the species. Therefore we always write, where it does not become too 

 cumbersome (in titles, etc.). Bacterium pyocyaneum (Fliigge) Lehmann and 

 Neumann. 



While we believe that all names which express the systematic position of the 

 organisms shall conform to the general rules of nomenclature, still we believe 

 that names currently used in bacteriologic literature, as gonococcus, pneumococ- 

 cus, staphylococcus, tubercle bacillus, diphtheria bacillus, can still be used, but 

 as so-called ordinary names. Thus the technical botanist, if not speaking in a 

 strictly systematic sense, often speaks of oak instead of Quercus, and strawberry 

 instead of Fragaria. We must, however, strictly avoid smuggling into the liter- 

 ature as names of genera, such names as gonococcus, etc. 



Comment. Migula in his monumental treatise on bacteria published 

 in 1900, and Chester in his Manual of Determinative Bacteriology 

 published in 1901 have both followed with a measurable degree of suc- 

 cess, the rules which have been so clearly summarized in the above 

 statement by Lehmann and Neumann. These rules are, of course, as 

 the authors have indicated, only a condensed summary of international 

 rules with a few interpolations of the authors themselves. In an 

 extensive discussion or consideration of nomenclature, questions are 

 constantly arising which can not be answered by this summary. It is 

 necessary for sufficient and adequate information as to their solution, 

 to turn to the international rules which govern botanical nomenclature. 



