INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN O F BACTERIOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY
No. 3
July 15, 1956
pp. 99-100
Volume 6
STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS VERSUS
STAPHYLOCOCCUS P Y OGENES
S. T , Cowan
National Collection of Type C u l t u r e s
London, England
D r . B r e e d (1) has p r e s e n t e d a s t r o n g c a s e f o r the u s e of
Staphylococcus pyogenes as the specific n a m e of the type of
Staphylococcus Rosenbach, and h a s a s k e d the Judicial Comm i s s i o n not only to a c c e p t Staphylococcus pyogenes as the
n a m e f o r the type but a l s o to waive the Code's r e q u i r e m e n t
that the f i r s t v a r i e t y of
pyogenes should b e
gyogenes
v a r . pyogenes.
D r . B r e e d would c r e a t e t h r e e v a r i e t i e s
b a s e d p r e s u m a b l y on differences i n pigmentation. N e a r l y
all w o r k e r s except the Winslows have r e j e c t e d pigmentation
as a b a s i s f o r classifying staphylococci and those who a r e
m o r e f a m i l i a r with t h e s e o r g a n i s m s know that the v a r i e t y
a u r e u s is so unstable that, even when f r e s h l y isolated, it
continually throws a high proportion of s o - c a l l e d albus v a r i a n t s . It would indeed be poor s y s t e m a t i c s to have a v a r i e t y
which was continually changing to another v a r i e t y . The
third, o r v a r i e t y c i t r e u s is r a t h e r different; m y experience
of coagulase-positive staphylococci which produce a lemonyellow pigment is that they a r e much m o r e s t a b l e than the
gold-pigmented s t r a i n s . But pigmentation is so unsatisfact o r y f o r the classification of staphylococci that Staphylococcus a u r e u s is defined by n e a r l y all r e c e n t w o r k e r s on
the b a s i s of the coagulase test, and pigmentation is ignored.
The binomial Staphylococcus pyogenes h a s been a t t r i b u t e d
to Rosenbach, who n e v e r u s e d it, and i n f a c t Dr. B r e e d t e l l s
u s on page 39 (1) that P a s s e t was the f i r s t author to u s e
Staphylococcus pyogenes "without a n attached v a r i e t a l name".
Consequently, i f i n the next edition of the B e r g e y Manual
the name Staphylococcus pyogenes is used, it should b e
attributed to P a s s e t and not to Rosenbach.
Locke w r o t e i n the seventeenth century that llgenus and
s p e c i e s of things (for those Latin t e r m s signify to m e no
m o r e than the English w o r d s o r t ) " and even today t o m o s t
people the word "species" h a s the meaning of s o r t , so that
no difference is made to the s e n s e of Rosenbach's p h r a s e by
2.
2.
--
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:58:47
P a g e 100
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
i n t e r p r e t i n g the G e r m a n word A r t a s "sort'l i n s t e a d of
"species". T h e r e is no concensus of opinion onwhat constitutes a b a c t e r i a l species, and i t i s m o s t unlikelythat Rosenbach gave any thought to whether he was dealing with s o r t s ,
s p e c i e s , o r v a r i e t i e s . What is i m p o r t a n t is that our i n t e r pretation of h i s writings should be i n conformity with the
Rules of the Bacteriological Code.
Staphylococcus a u r e u s was c o r r e c t l y u s e d by Rosenbach
i n his book published i n 1884, and no amount of discussion
c a n get around that f a c t . Staphylococcus pyogenes is a l a t e r
synonym, and c a n only be made the c o r r e c t n a m e by action
of the Judicial Commission.
Some w o r k e r s believe that Staphylococcus pyogenes h a s
been u s e d i n th,e l i t e r a t u r e m o r e than Staphylococcus a u r e u s .
In the absence of a detailed list of a l l p a p e r s usingbinomials
f o r staphylococci it is a m a t t e r of opinion which binomial
h a s been m o s t u s e d ; p e r s o n a l l y I think that the popularity of
Staphylococcus pyogenes has been g r e a t e r i n biochemical
than i n bacteriological journals. But popularity h a s no place
i n bacteriological nomenclature and Rule 23 is quite f i r m i n
its prohibition of a change of a validly published epithet to
one t h a t is "better known".
I t is now t i m e that the Judicial Commission should be
asked to give a n Opinion on the p r o p o s a l by Gibson (2) and
the amendments made by o t h e r s (1,3). The f a c t s and v a r i o u s
p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s have a l r e a d y been put f o r w a r d ; an
official Opinion will s e t t l e which epithet is to be u s e d by
those who o b s e r v e the Rules of the Bacteriological Code and
the Opinions i s s u e d by the Judicial Commission.
REFERENCES
1 . Breed, R.S. Staphylococcus pyogenes Rosenbach. I n t e r natl. Bull. Bact. Nomen. and Taxon. 6:35-42. 1956.
2, Gibson, T. The s t a t u s of the generic n a m e s Micrococcus
and Staphylococcus and of the s p e c i e s n a m e Staphylococcus aureua. Internatl. Bull. Bact. Nomen. and
Taxon. 3:129. 1 9 5 3 .
3 . Cowan, S.
C . Shaw, and R . E . O . Williams. Type
s t r a i n f o r Staphylococcus a u r e u s Rosenbach. Jour.
Gen. Microbiol. L O : 174. 1954.
-r.,
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:58:47