BACTERIOLOGICAL TECHNIC. 77 



skill ate necessary. Just what kind of observations are involved in such study 

 is indicated in the complete method as outlined by the Society of American 

 Bacteriologists (Jan., 1908), which is hereby submitted for the benefit 

 of those who may wish to acquaint themselves with such details. The 

 glossary of terms should be carefully considered first of all. The decimal 

 system for indicating group relationships of microbes (Table I) is most 

 unique and is very convenient for active workers. Those interested will 

 find the desired explanations of the methods and reagents mentioned, in any 

 of the larger works on medical bacteriology and in bacteriological technology. 

 It is not at all likely that the pharmacist will ever have occasion to make use 

 of the special methods cited. He should nevertheless acquaint himself with 

 them sufficiently to comprehend their application in the study of pathogenic 

 bacteria. 



Our bacteria nomenclature is in some confusion, and unless the methods 

 of naming bacteria are corrected, the confusion is certain to become much 

 greater. The trouble lies in the failure to define group or generic delimita- 

 tions. The present generic terms, "bacillus" and "micrococcus," include 

 too many species. We have a confusing and almost incomprehensible 

 array of synonyms, of which those applied to Rhizohium mutahile may serve 

 as an example. The different names that have been given to this organism 

 may be arranged as follows: 



Pasteuraceae, Laurent. 



Bacteria, Woronin, 1866. 



Bakteroiden, Brunchorst and Frank, 1885. 



Microsymbiont, Atkinson, 1893. 



Spores or gemmules, Ward and Ericksson. 



Bacillus radicicola, Beyerinck, 1888. 



Cladochytrium leguminosarum, Vuellemin. 



Phytomyxa leguminosarum, Schroeter. 



Schinzia leguminosarum, y^oromD.. 



Rhizobium leguminosarum, Frank, 1890. 



Rhizohium Frankii, Schneider, 1892. 



Rhizobium mutabile, Schneider, 1902. 



Pseudomonas radicicola, Moore, 1905. 



The above synonomy is also interesting because it indicates a most remark- 

 able difference of opinion regarding the nature and identity of this root- 

 nodule organism. Further, as the result of the wholly inadequate group 

 delimitations we have such name-monstrosities as Granulohacillus saccharo- 

 butyricus mobilis nonliquifaciens, and Micrococcus acidi paralactici liquifaciens 

 Halensi. Reform in nomenclature is very desirable, and it must come 

 through a careful definition of generic groups based on physiological charac- 

 ters, rather than upon largely morphological characters, as is done now. 



