NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF BACTERIA 595 



which generic names are valid, prepare such a list, publish the 

 names as genera conservanda, and date all bacterial classification 

 from 1915 when the list should have been adopted by the con- 

 gress. He comes to the conclusion that all the true bacteria 

 should be included in the following genera: Planococcus, Strepto- 

 coccus, Klebsiella, Merista, Planomerista, Neisseria, Sarcina, 

 Planosarcina, Metabacterium, Clostridium, Serratia, Bacterium 

 and Spirillum. 



A study of Vuillemin's paper, despite his criticism of the 

 bacteriologists as taxonomists, shows that he himself does not 

 formulate tenable bases for differentiation of genera, and his 

 reasons for choosing certain generic names and abandoning others 

 will scarcely withstand critical analysis. 



But after all, is a scientific classification of the bacteria impor- 

 tant and desirable? Allow me to quote from a paper pubhshed 

 about two decades ago by H. Marshall Ward. He says: 



The only really valid objection to a purely scientific classification is 

 the old objection of the purely utilitarian "practical" man; and even 

 there the objection is relative. This leads me to bring out the point 

 that the bacteriologists in the widest sense of the word, are really 

 looking at the question of classification from at least two very different 

 points of view: On the one hand, we have the botanists, who direct 

 their attention to the organism, the Schizomycete itself, as a biological 

 phenomenon to be examined and reported upon as thoroughly as 

 possible, for them no classification is complete which does not record, 

 or (which amounts to the same thing) imply in its records, all of the 

 life phenomena of the organism including its pedigree. 



On the other hand, we have the pathologists, hygienists, brewers, 

 chemists, etc., who regard the organism simply as an object to be 

 named for convenience in reference, because it brings about certain 

 changes in the tissues, waters, and other media which they are more 

 specially concerned with. They do not care, and naturally so, what 

 vagaries the organism exhibits, so long as they can recognize it when 

 they meet with it. As a matter of experience, however, it is just these 

 vagaries that bring about the sources of error which beset them on all 

 hands, and hence they are equally interested with the botanist in 

 having them cleared up and explained. When we come to the con- 

 clusion that, whatever may be believed to the contrary, the real 

 interests of "bacteriologists" of all kinds are identical. 



