150 GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 



c. That the Society take steps to present these recommendations to the next 

 International Botanical Congress, and if possible to secure favorable action 

 thereon by that body. 



In the final report (1920) the following statement is made. 



The following names are recommended for adoption as approved genera: 



Acetobacter Fuhrmann Leuconostoc Van Tieghem 



Actinomyces Harz Micrococcus Cohn 



Bacillus Cohn Rhizobium Frank 

 Bacterium Ehrenberg ' Sarcina Goodsir 



Chromobacterium Bergonzini Spirillum Ehrenberg 



Clostridium Prazmowski Staphylococcus Rosenbach 



Erythrobacillus Fortineau Streptococcus Rosenbach 



Leptotrichia Trevisan Vibrio Mueller 



Its work so far as possible being completed, we recommend that the Committee 

 on Characterization and Classification of Bacterial Types be discharged and that 

 a new Committee on Bacterial Taxonomy be appointed (1) to study and report to 

 the Society from time to time in regard to problems of nomenclature, including 

 such revisions of the nomenclature in the present report as may seem necessary; 

 and (2) to take the proper steps to secure action at the next International Botani- 

 cal Congress leading to the general ends contemplated in the 1916 recommenda- 

 tions of the Society: 



a. That French, English or German may be substituted for Latin in the diag- 

 nosis of bacterial species. 



b. That the date of publication of the third edition of Zopf's Spaltpilze (1883) 

 be considered the beginning of bacterial nomenclature for the purpose of deter- 

 mining priority, with the exception of a definite list of genera conservanda. 



c. That such of the approved generic names specified above as may be found 

 to require such action be recognized as genera conservanda in bacterial taxonomy. 



STATEMENT AS TO NOMENCLATURAL PRACTICE IN PRESENT 



VOLUME 



It would seem evident from the preceding discussion that the funda- 

 mental basis for nomenclature in bacteriology must be the International 

 Botanical or Vienna-Brussels Code. However, it is quite apparent that 

 there are certain rules which have not been and cannot well be recognized 

 by bacteriologists, particularly the rule requiring that the specific diagno- 

 ses be published in Latin in order to be valid. It is also evident that 

 stability in bacteriological nomenclature must come through the appli- 

 cation of a type basis. Apparently the best that has been formulated 

 for botanists is that contained in the majority report of the Committee 

 on Botanical Nomenclature given above. We shall therefore utilize 

 the latter as a basis for naming the bacteria described. It should be 

 remembered that acceptance of the code of this report does not mean 

 abandonment of the International Code. 



