ROGER G. PERKINS 121 



On the whole it seems as though, in spite of its defects, the work of the last twenty 

 years has established sufficient recognized groups, especially of the higher ranks, to 

 enable us, with the appreciation that bacteriology is a young subject, to develop these 

 rationally, without any complete upset. At present there are certainly sufficient 

 shades of difference between the extremes to accommodate anyone. 



Another important controversy, more marked perhaps among the adherents to 

 Linnean priority, centers around the question whether a name should be descriptive, 

 giving some indication as to character or the group or individual, or whether this is un- 

 important, and the name, if historically correct, should be retained even if wrong or 

 confusing. Enlows stated in 1920: 



It is to be hoped that the many inadequately defined genera here listed may serve as 

 glowing examples of errors to be avoided by future contributors. A plea is made, too, for 

 the introduction of generic names which are descriptive, since many names of this sort define, 

 and in a way, classify. Proper names converted by the addition of -iiica, -cUa, etc., are very 

 alluring because of the acknowledgment of the debt we owe our leaders, but they are not de- 

 scriptive terms, and offer no aid whatever to any system of classification. 



On the other hand, the Committee of the Society of American Bacteriologists stated 

 in 1917 that "the name need not be appropriate, it need only be stable. It is an ar- 

 bitrary description." Stiles stated in 1905: "It is essential to recall that names are 

 not definitions; they are merely handles by which objects are known." These last 

 indicate the majority opinion, save in the more independent classifications, such as 

 Orla-Jensen (1921), Enderlein (1925), and others, where the attempt at descriptive 

 titles is prominent. In connection with Enlows' {loc. cit.) remarks about the eponymic 

 groupings, it is interesting to note that in medicine there is a growing tendency to- 

 ward correctly descriptive names for diseases, with corresponding abandonment of 

 proper names. 



It seems as though neither the apologists nor the higher critics are satisfactory or 

 satisfied, nor is it surprising in a science in formation. The essential contention ap- 

 pears to center about the proper, relative proportion of a conservatism which objects 

 to the removal of well-known signposts, partly on the basis that their familiarity more 

 than overbalances their misdirections, and a liberalism which wishes to accept only 

 such names and descriptions as fit our present knowledge. What shall be the mixture 

 and who shall mix it? 



It is stated with much force of logic that constant change in names and in qualifi- 

 cations is confusing, and that even now the bacteriologist has to have at least one key, 

 if not more, at his elbow when he reads his literature, and that historical articles will 

 soon be quite unusable, a mere hieroglyphic literature, understandable only by a few. 

 It is true also that if in the last thirty years or less the discoveries have been such as 

 to invalidate old classifications, what warrant have we that the next thirty years may 

 not repeat the process? Further advance in technicjue may reveal details of form yet 

 unknown to us, may crystallize our information, and may yet uncover unsuspected 

 biological relations. On the other hand, it is clear that at present our known details 

 of morphology of any degree of constancy are numbered, and that chemical and phys- 

 ical differentiations have become more and more stabilized within certain group lim- 

 its. Although it may be true that new information may and probably will necessitate 



