40' MANUAL OF DETERMINATIVE BACTERIOLOGY 



pus COCCUS, and many others. Similarly, we find in German Typhus- 

 bazillen and in French bacille typhique, enterococcus, etc. The use of 

 these common names offers certain advantages. It does away frequently 

 with the necessity of repeating longer and more formal scientific names. 

 Not infrequently scientific names may be adopted into a language, and 

 converted into vernacular names. For example, the English name aster 

 and the scientific generic name Aster are applied to the same group. This 

 is frequently a convenience, but there are also some difficulties, which will 

 be emphasized below. 



In contrast to common, vernacular or casual names, the scientific name 

 for each kind of organism (each plant or animal) is supposed to be the same 

 in all countries and in all languages. When such a scientific name is used, 

 no question should arise in any language as to what organism is intended. 

 The names thus applied are supposed to conform to certain general rules 

 that have been formulated by international agreement. Obviously the use 

 of such names is advantageous whenever one is desirous of accuracy, and of 

 being definitely understood in all languages. It is further evident that in 

 all questions relating to taxonomy and classification it is highly desirable 

 that the scientific names be used. 



International rules for nomenclature. In order that there be an inter- 

 national set of scientific names, it is essential that there be an international 

 agreement as to the rules which should govern their creation. Both of the 

 great groups of biologists, the botanists and the zoologists, have met in 

 numerous international congresses in which delegates were accredited by 

 the great botanical and zoological societies, museums, and educational 

 institutions of the world. Codes of nomenclature designed to tell how names 

 shall be manufactured and used, and how to tell which of two or more names 

 that have been used is correct, have been developed by each of these groups. 

 These codes or lists of rules and recommendations are quite similar in 

 essentials for botany and zoology, although they differ in some details. 



The question arises: Are either or both of these codes satisfactory or 

 adaptable to the use of bacteriologists. Three views have been expressed 

 by various writers. Some few have suggested that the naming of bacteria 

 cannot well conform to the approved international rules as their classifica- 

 tion involves considerations not familiar to botanists and zoologists gen- 

 erally. The second group, also a very small one, has insisted that uni- 

 cellular forms of life are neither plants or animals, but protista, and that 

 taxonomic rules, etc., should be distinct for this group and coordinate with 

 the corresponding rules for plants and for animals. 



The third view, more commonly expressed, is that the bacteria are 

 sufficiently closely related to the plants and animals, so that (in so far as 



