488 GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 



described and named Staphylococcus pyogenes aureus and Staph, pyo- 

 genes albus respectively, or, as they are later designated in his paper 

 Staphylococcus aureus and Staph, albus. Fluegge (1886) defined the 

 genus as made up of spherical or oval non-motile cells in irregular 

 masses. Hueppe (1886) also used this name, Trevisan (1889, p. 32) 

 included this genus as the second in the tribe Micrococcee, with the 

 description "Spore microsome." Nine species are enumerated. De 

 Toni and Trevisan (1889, p. 1072) ascribe the genus to Ogston and 

 give the following description: 



Cocci primitus globosi indivisi, aetate provecta in coccos duos biscoctifor- 

 miter geminos, latere fratrem versus plus minus complanato, utrinque ad polos 

 isthmis filamentis tenuissimis insimul nexos, scissi, in turmas racemiformiter 

 consociati. Endosporae microsomae in coccis normalibus obvenientes. 



The genus is also recognized by Cornil and Babes (1890, p. 145). 

 Lehmann and Neumann (1901, p. 123) state: 



The genus Staphylococcus Ogston has no botanical rights, for the property of 

 forming "grape like" clusters is possessed at times by all varieties described 

 today as micrococci. The name Staphylococcus does not primarily designate 

 anj-^ "new" genus. Ogston found (microscopically) two forms of micrococci in 

 pus (without cultivating them), grape cocci and chain cocci, and designated them 

 by the well-chosen names of Staphylococcus and Streptococcus (Billroth). Rosen- 

 bach later cultivated the varieties which Ogston had seen, and gave the name 

 Staphylococcus to the bunched cocci, which we may today employ as the ordinary 

 name for species of micrococci causing suppuration, and which we will use, but it 

 must be dropped from the botanical classification. 



The argument of these authors is not particularly convincing. As 

 previously noted Rosenbach definitely and adequately described two 

 species of the new genus. The whole question is whether these organ- 

 isms are worthy of generic separation from the older genus Micrococcus. 



Migula (1897) regarded Staphylococcus as a synonym of Micrococcus 

 and not worthy of separate generic differentiation. Most authors in' 

 recent years have accepted Migula's views and have used Staphylococcus 

 as a casual name to designate a method of cell grouping or a form genus. 



The Winslows (1905) have proposed to split the old genus Staphy- 

 lococcus into two genera, Aurococcus and Albococcus. If these or- 

 ganisms are worthy of generic rank one should be Staphylococcus and 

 the other Albococcus. 



Buchanan (1917, p. 612) emended the generic description as follows 

 (including it as the fifth genus in the tribe Streptococceae) : 



