CLASSIFICATION OF ANAEROBIC BACTERIA 539 



man another, and a third decided some ten years later from their 

 descriptions whether they were working with the same or with 

 different species. The biometric method is evidently true biology, 

 while the other is a process of cataloging. The principles of the 

 biometric method are those that one would choose to follow, 

 even though one were unable to make a study of so extensive a 

 series as did Winslow and Winslow. But it is upon the first 

 method, that of collation of descriptions from the literature, 

 that our comprehensive classifications have so far been made. 

 This has led to a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the 

 anaerobic group. A few anaerobes have been described, most 

 of the descriptions being wholly inadequate for purposes of 

 specific determination. This fact has in no way deterred workers 

 from making identifications. Some of these mistaken identi- 

 fications are now thoroughly ingrained in the literature, for 

 example the use of the name putrificus in Germany for the 

 sporogenes tjrpe of organism, when there is a different definite 

 type existent which corresponds far more closely to Bienstock's 

 description of B. putrificus. The names of some of the de- 

 scribed anaerobes have been accepted, and if these types are 

 pathogenic or very common they find their way into the text- 

 books. Textbooks mention usually five anaerobic organisms: 

 B. tetani, B. botulinus, B. oedematis-maligni, B. Welchii, and 

 B. Ckauvoei. So far as I can see the classifications are largely 

 based on a conception of the anaerobic world which knows few 

 forms but these. But the worker with "wild" material can 

 easily pick up and isolate two or three new species of anaerobes 

 a day for an almost indefinite period. Few workers now pay any 

 attention to non-pathogenic anaerobes, knowing that their path 

 would be crossed by so many new species that no end but the 

 mere description of new species would be attained. But these 

 undescribed forms are just as important, theoretically, to the 

 systematist, as are the pathogenic ones. 



The ideal way of classifying anaerobes would be a biometric 

 one carried out on a scientifically adequate number of strains. 

 But it will be years before sufficient interest in the anaerobes 

 exists to warrant the collection of any such material. Th6 labor 



