ROBERT S. BREED 391 



riod that frequently did not test the heat resistance of the supposed spores. The com- 

 mon expectation that spores were produced in rod-shaped bacteria under unfavorable 

 conditions may have helped in increasing the illusions. Recent authors who are fa- 

 miliar with this history have generally regarded both Hueppe's and Escherich's or- 

 ganisms as non-spore-formers. 



In other respects these two organisms showed the normal characters of bacteria of 

 the colon group in that they fermented dextrose and lactose with the formation of acid 

 and gas, the latter a mixture of CO2 and H2. Unfortunately, no use was made of su- 

 crose as a differential medium. The size of the organisms and the type of growth de- 

 scribed as occurring on gelatin media were typical of these two organisms as we know 

 them today. Escherich reports the growth of Bad. lactis aerogenes on potato as 

 frothy, suggesting the fermentation of starch with the production of acid and gas. 



During the period between the time when the organisms were first described and 

 1902, the two organisms were sometimes regarded as identical and sometimes as dis- 

 tinct. The name Bacillus acidi lactici apparently became current in Koch's laboratory 

 for Hueppe's unnamed organism, as at least four investigators (Zopf,' Crookshank,^ 

 Flugge,3 Fraenkel^), in the order named, apparently independently and almost simul- 

 taneously published this name. All of these authors were more or less closely associ- 

 ated with this laboratory, and also published other names {Bacillus indicus; see Breed 

 and Breed)5 current in this laboratory at the same period. In Zopf 's case he notes that 

 the name he proposes is not to be confused with the name Bacterium acidi lactici that 

 he had previously published for another organism.^ 



Grotenfelt used four closely related cultures, regarding two of them as distinct 

 from Hueppe's organism. For the two related cultures he used the names Bacterium 

 acidi lactici I &° II. Migula,^ overlooking Zopf 's and Grotenfelt's previous use of the 

 term Bacterium acidi lactici, proposed this name for Heuppe's organism, while Kruse^ 

 used this name for still another presumably different organism described by Peters. 

 If Grotenfelt's Bacterium acidi lactici cultures were identical with Hueppe's organism, 

 as seems probable, then Bacterium grotenfeldtii Migula likewise becomes a synonym. 



Mace,' with a very natural desire to give Pasteur credit for his work, has proposed 

 the name Bacillus lacticus for Pasteur's Levure lactique, regarding this as identical with 

 Hueppe's rather than Lister's organism. 



The early synonomy given for Bacterium lactis aerogenes Escherich needs some 

 comment to clarify it. Baginsky'" used the binomial Bacterium lactis for this organism 

 in 1888, but repudiated the name in favor of the binomial Bacterium aceticum in the 



' Zopf, W.: op cit. (3d ed.). Breslau, 1885. 



^ Crookshank, E. M.: Practical Bacteriology (ist ed.)- London, 1886. 

 3 Fliigge, C: Die Microorganismen (2d ed.)- Leipzig, 1886. 

 ■• Fraenkel, C: Bakier ie>ikiinde (ist ed.). Berlin, 1887. 

 s Breed, R. S., and Breed, M. E.: /. Bad., 11, 76. 1926. 

 ^'Zopf, W.: op. cit. (2d ed.). Breslau, 1884. 



7 Migula, W.: in Engler and Prantl's iVato'r//c//c?z Pflanzenfamilicn, Teil I, Abt. la, 25. 1895. 

 * Kruse, W.: in Fliigge's Die Mikroorganismen (2 vols.). Leipzig, 1896. 

 9 Mace, E.: Traite pratique de bacteriologie (2 vols.). Paris, 1913. 

 '"Baginsky, A.: Ztschr.f. phys. Chem., 12, 434. 1888. 



