392 BACTERIA IN MILK 



same article on the ground that the specific name lactis had already been used. Tre- 

 visan' the following year proposed the binomial Bacterium lactantiiim in an obscure 

 pamphlet that has been generally overlooked. By a strict application of the rules of 

 nomenclature, one or the other of Baginsky's names or Trevisan's name has priority 

 depending on the genus in which the organism is placed. 



Sternberg' appears to have been the first to use the term Bacillus lactis aerogenes, 

 while Kruse appears to have been the first to shorten this name so as to use the spe- 

 cific name aerogenes for Escherich's rather than Miller's^ organism. Usage has so far 

 established this as the specific name for Escherich's organism that it is hoped that 

 it will continue to be used by international agreement. Chester^" rather than Migula/ 

 as is commonly stated, appears to have been the first to use the binomial Bacterium 

 aerogenes. 



Until Durham's'' report in 1900, very little progress was made in describing ad- 

 ditional characters of either Heuppe's or Escherich's organisms that would show their 

 relationship to each other. Durham, working with a culture of B. lactis aerogenes 

 labeled "Kosseck" and obtained from Escherich's laboratory, found that this culture 

 fermented sucrose and starch with the production of acid and gas, but did not ferment 

 inulin. This and his related cultures were Voges-Proskauer (methyl-carbinol) posi- 

 tive. In 1904 Perkins,^ working with cultures of B. acidi lactici and B. aerogenes ob- 

 tained from Krai and presumably authentic, reported the first to be a sucrose-non- 

 fermenter, whereas the second fermented sucrose with the formation of acid and gas. 



MacConkey^ in 1905 used Durham's B. lactis aerogenes culture and a culture of B. 

 acidi lactici from Krai and reports that the first ferments sucrose and is Voges-Pros- 

 kauer positive, while the latter is a non-sucrose-fermenter and Voges-Proskauer 

 negative. Morgan" also reported that these two organisms differed in regard to 

 sucrose fermentation; and likewise found that neither fermented dulcitol. 



These early papers have been followed by a great mass of investigational work on 

 the classification of the colon-typhoid group, the greater part of which has been done 

 in America. It is impossible to review these papers in any detail; the articles by 

 Winslow, KHgler, and Rothberg'" and Levine" give extensive bibliographies. While 

 some of the findings are confusing and apparently contradictory, the final result has 

 been to support the idea that the two organisms under discussion are distinct. Recent 

 definitions (Perkins'^ and Weldin'^) by specialists in the group hold closely totheorig- 



' Trevisan, V.: / gen. e le spec, delle Batleriacae. Milan, 1S89. 

 ^ Sternberg, G. M.: Manual of Bacteriology. New York, 1893. 

 3 Miller: Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 12, 117. 1S86. 



^ Chester, F. D.: Delaware Agric. E.xper. Sta. {Newark) gth Ann. Rep., 53-145. 1897. 

 5 Migula, W.: op. cit. (2 vols.). Jena, 1897-1900. 

 * Durham, H. E. : /. Expcr. Med., 5, 353. 1900. 

 'Perkins, R. G.: .T . Infal. Dis., 1, 241. 1904. 

 ^ MacConkey, A.: J. II yg., s, t,;^:^. 1905. 

 'Morgan, H. de R.: Brit. M. J., 1, 1257. 1905. 



"Winslow, C.-E. A., Kligler, 1. J., and Rothhcrg, \V.: /. Bad., 4, 429. 1919. 

 " Levine, M.: Iowa Stale College {Ames) Engiii. E.vpcr. Sta. Bull. 6.2. 1921. 

 " Perkins, R. G.: J. Infect. Dis., 37, 232. 1925. 

 '3 Weldin, J. C: Iowa .S7<;/f College {.inies) J. Sc., i, 121. 1927. 



