NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATIONS. I73 



with I'ibrio spirillum^ a subseqvient addition by I\Iiiller, was removed by Elirenberg 

 to form his genus Spirilhini, which we still retain. The eel-worms were removed to 

 form the genus Anguillula, and the other infusoria were variousl)' distributed. Only 

 the first two species of the original genus remained in Cohn's time, and neither one 

 was used by him. Cohn used Vibrio ritgiila^ one of ]\Iiiller's additions, for the first 

 species under his emended genus A'ibrio, but this lias now Ijeen put by Migula into 

 Spirillum. The only other member of Cohn's genus \'ibrio (emend.), /'. serpens^ is 

 still less like the cholera organism. Ehrenberg's figure of J'ibrio lincola r^liiller 

 (Infusionsth.) shows crooked little organisms not unlike what we now call vibrios. 

 As a general proposition the writer belie\-es that if a genus name is to be 

 retained one should be able to tie it to some definite type-species, and it ought to 

 be a species put into a genus when it was first published, and not one put in after 

 the genus has been emended out of all recognition. Of course, nothing can be 

 done with Miiller's, or Cohn's, genus description of \'ibrio. If the name is to be 

 retained for any organisms whatsoever, the description nuist be made o\-er and the 

 name anchored to a known species. Ordinarily such a name should be discarded. 

 Under the circumstances, we may perhaps strain a point, make over the genus 

 description in toto, and use the name \'ibrio, as man^• pathologists have done, for 

 Koch's comma bacillus and related forms. Logical!}-, perhaps, we should adopt the 

 strange Pacinia; for convenience sake we ma}' continue to use the familiar A'ibrio. 

 The name \'ibrio is not used by helminthologists or algologists, and, if we connect 

 it to the first species described by Muller under the genus, we ma}- anchor the name 

 to anv small motile species, without fear that subsequent researches Avill require 

 changes to be made. This ma}' be done, because the description of ]\Iiiller's Vibrio 

 lineola^ the first species, is so imperfect that identification is out of question ; the 

 name can ne\'er be attached to an^' morphologicalh- definite organism or group of 

 organisms different from the cholera vibrio, even the gelatinization of the water 

 after many days being probabl}- enough due to other bacteria. The writer follows 

 Lafar (ist ed.), Alfred Fischer, Lehmann & Neumann, ct al., and would write : 



Vibrio (Aluller, Cohn, emend.).-' 



T}pe of the genus, Koch's comma bacillus. 



Syjionv»is. — Spirillum cholera-asiaiica- Koch; Microspira coiinjia Schroeter; Pacinia 

 cliolcm-asiatica Trevisan. 



Kendall has criticized ]Migula's use of the word Pseudomonas on the ground 

 that he has combined under it two distinct groups of the famih' Bacteriacete, the 

 monotrichiate and the lophotrichiate forms, and because the name implies, he says, 

 a relation to " pseudomonads." The second criticism implies that to be tenable a 

 name must conform etymologically to all the facts in the case. This is a miscon- 

 ception. No one is warranted in setting aside a generic or specific name simply 

 because it seems inappropriate. It is not inappropriate, howe\'er, since the first 

 species in Miiller's genus AIo)ias was undoubtedh' founded on small bacteria of 

 some sort. As to the first criticism, that lies also against my use of Bacterium and 

 requires a word. This criticism appears to me not well taken, since in the 

 Bacteriaceae, as Migula first pointed out, there is no such sharp distinction 



*According to Fischer, 1903, and Lehmann & Neumann, iSg6, this emendation was made by Loeffler. 



