P a g e 151
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
INTERNATIONAL CODE
OF
BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
A Review
The Seventh International Botanical Congress (1) i n 1950 a t
Stockholm approved a revised International Botanical Code
of Nomenclature, and appointed an editing committee which
was authorized to publish. Dr. Lanjouw and the m e m b e r s
of this competent committee have completed their task, involving two y e a r s of work. The publication was i s s u e d under the date of September, 1952. This volume i s of major
significance to those interested i n microbiological nomenclature, particularly to bacteriologists. The International
Bacteriological Code of Nomenclature had i t s origins i n the
botanical code, andwas developed as a distinct code largely
because of the inapplicability of c e r t a i n of the botanical
rules to the nomenclature of the bacteria. One of the functions of the permanent Nomenclature Committee a s established by the International Association of Microbiologists
is "To cooperate with other Committees, particularly those
of the International Botanical and Zoological Congresses to
consider common problems of nomenclature". All the m e m b e r s of this Committee and of the Judicial Commission
should be familiar with the provisions of the revised botanical code in view of the many nomenclatural problems in
bacteriology that will be under consideration a t the meetings
to be held at the time of the Sixth International Congress of
Microbiologists i n Rome in September of 1953. This r e view will point out some of the m o r e significant changes
that have been made in the botanical code, with emphasis
upon those that may be of importance in contemplated r e visions of the bacteriological code
.
The volume is appropriately dedicated "Lib r u m hunc dedico
manibus c l a r i s s i m i John Briquet".
It was Briquet who so
successfully influenced and wisely guided the development
of e a r l i e r revisions of the botanical code. Dr. Lanjouw in
a m o s t interesting "Introduction" notes the change of the
name f r o m "International Rules" to "International Code".
One may echo his sentiment,"Finally I wish to e x p r e s s the
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 152
INTERNATIONAL BULLE TIN
hope that we will not change our Code a t every subsequent
Congress.
There a r e more important things to do! May
the p r e s e n t c o d e obtain the approval of a v e r y l a r g e number
of botanists.
The Editorial Committee is convinced of the
shortcomings of this Code, but it hopes that it will be given
a fair trial".
The revised Botanical Code includes three chapters and six
appendices.
There is a satisfactory Subject Index and a
most useful "Key to the numbering of the Articles and Recommendations11which enables one to relate the newly numbered a r t i c l e s and recommendations of the Code Stockholm
to those of the rules of edition 3 and to those of the Synopsis Stockholm.
The three chapter headings of the older Codes a r e unchanged
i n the new revision. The f i r s t of these "General Considerations and Guiding principle^^^, includes two additional Articles.
In Atticle 8 there is the final formulation of the
statement that taxonomic groups throughout the code will be
r e f e r r e d to as taxa (singular: taxon). Article 15 of the p r e vious code becomes Article 9. Article 10 is new; i t defines
five t e r m s which have often been misconstrued, namely
legitimate name o r epithet, illegitimate name or epithet,
the c o r r e c t name of a taxon, effective publication, and &id publication.
It a l s o specifies that,wherever the word
name is used,it means a name which h a s been validly published, whether legitimate o r illegitimate.
-
Chapter 11 treate of the t C a t e g o r i e s of Taxa, and the t e r m s
denoting them". Three Articles replace five, with s i m p l e r
and c l e a r e r phraseology. The older s y s t e m of numbering
recommendations consecutively throughout the G ode is r e placed by a system s i m i l a r to that ueed in the Bacteriologic a l Code; Recommendation I becomes Recommendation 14A.
Most of the revision of the Code is to be found in Chapter 111
on "Names of Taxall. This Chapter ha6 i n c r e a s e d the numb e r of Section8 f r o m fifteen to sixteen by dividing f o r m e r
Section 10. In general the headings of the s e v e r a l sections
remain with only minor change, the m o s t important p e r haps being the increased emphasis upon epithets as well as
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 153
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
upon taxa.
The new Chapter III contains Articles 16-83 a s
contrasted with Articles 15-71 in the f o r m e r revision. Included a r e many changes which a r e of i n t e r e s t to biologists
other than botanists. The following modifications are worthy of note.
Article 16 limits the rule of priority to names of o r d e r s and
of taxa of lower rank. Provision is a l s o made for alternative names for nine specified families.
The c o r r e c t name
for any taxon from order to genus inclusive is the e a r l i e s t
legitimate name validlypublished with the s a m e rank. There
is added a new statement relative to the c o r r e c t name of a
taxon below the rank of genus. A c o r r e c t name f o r such a
taxon is a combination of the generic name with the "earli e s t available legitimate epithet o r epithets validly published with the same rank".
Consideration may well be given
to similar amendment of Principle 9 of the Bacteriological
Code.
Section 2, "The Type Method" has been considerably modified and amplified and increased from one to four Articles.
The recognition of the type method is now as complete and
adequate in botany a s in zoology, and much m o r e complete
than in bacteriology.
Holotypes, lectotypes and neotypes
a r e defined. Article 20 clearly states that the Ittype of any
order or of any taxon of a rank between o r d e r and farnilyis
the family whose name is based on the same generic name".
Again, the type of a family "or of any taxon between family
and genus is the genus on whose present o r former name
that of the taxon concerned is based". The corresponding
rule in zoology states that the name of families and of subfamilies a r e f o r m e d f r o m the stems of the namea of the type
genera.
There is no provision for the use of synonyms of
The draft
generic names in formation of family names.
Rule 3 of the Bacteriological Code would require that the
names of families and of intermediate taxa between families
and genera be formed from the name of a contained genus
and with a recommendation that the name of the type genus
be chosen.
The definition of nomenclatural types of specific and eubspecific taxa a s given in the Botanical Code is quiteunrealistic
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 154
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
f r o m the standpoint of the needs of bacteriology. Certainly
the type of m o s t b a c t e r i a l species cannotbe defined adequatel y a s a "single specimen o r other element" even with the
provision that "for non-vascular plants the type may consist
of m o r e than one individual".
Article 23 gives the beginning dates of valid publication f o r
each of s e v e r a l groups of plants, but the date f o r the bact e r i a i s not included. The f i r s t International Congress of
Microbiologists held i n P a r i s in 1930 formally recommended
to the Cambridge International Botanical Congress held
likewise in 1930 that the date for beginning of valid publication for the bacteria be fixed as 1753 with Linnaeus Species
Plantarum ed. 1. This recommendation was duly presented to the appropriate Section on Taxonomy. It was the understanding of the w r i t e r that this date was approved by this
Section, but this s e e m s not t o have been done, f o r there is
no reference to such action in the subsequent s e v e r a l editione of the Botanical Code. The date is fixed as noted above by Rule 10 of the Bacteriological Code.
Provisions for conservation of names are r e v i s e d by s t r i c t
limitation of such conservation to names of "genera, famil i e s , o r d e r s and intermediate taxa", thereby continuing to
exclude f r o m conservation the names of s p e c i e s and their
subordinate groups, but permitting the conservation of taxa
higher than genera. It should be noted in Chapter 4 P r o v i sion 2 of the Bacteriological Code the conservation of gener i c bacterial names only is provided f o r , but in the new
Provision 5 approved by the Fifth International Congress of
Microbiologists (1950) the Judicial Commission was author ized to conserve names of taxa of all ranks.
There appear in Articles 24 and 2 5 r e f e r e n c e s to s e v e r a l
Committees having specific functions. In Article 24 (Note 1)
i t is stated that proposals of names f o r conservation will be
made to the "General Committee, who will r e f e r them f o r
examination to the Special Committees for the various taxonomic groups".
But i n the next Article (25) a somewhat
different procedure is postulated in the statement providing
for provisional approval by "the Advisory Board and GenerThis Board and these Committees a r e not
a l Committee".
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 155
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
mentioned elsewhere in the code except in a footnote on p. 82
which suggests that certain names should be r e f e r r e d to the
"General Committee of Botanical Nomenclature". One who
uses the code is left quite uninformed as to the personnel,
method of appointment and delegatedfunctions of these comTo one who a s a member of the International Asmittees.
sociation for Plant Taxonomy knows of the International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature and through the
columns of the publication Taxon is aware of the s e v e r a l
Boards and Committees, these references a r e not complete
mysteries.
However, i t is unfortunate that nowhere in the
Code nor in its appendices is there any key to organizational relationships.
A footnote to Note1 of Article 25 relating to lists of conserved names r e f e r s to "Appendix V". This appendix is made
up of two lists.
The f i r s t is named "Nomina familiarum
conservanda", but one is left in some doubt a s to the r e a l
etatus of the list. It is stated to be a "list composed of the
four proposals listed below but not officially acted upon by
the Congress". There is no indication that any of the names
of families here listed have been given any preliminary approval of the Boards or Committees a s directed in Articles
24 and 25.
It is unfortunate that the exact status of the
names listed is not clear, except perhaps to those who p a r ticipated in the discussions a t Stockholm. F u r t h e r , it would
seem that the names themselves should be reviewed with
some c a r e to make s u r e that the family names a s given a r e
in f a c t derived from the generic names listed (presumably
the T standingbefore the several generic names is an abbreviation of typus). Article 28 states that the name of a family is taken from its type genus o r from a synonym and ends
in aceae. Does not this mean that - aceae is to be added
to the stem of the generic name? F o r example, the stem
or combining form of Balanops is Balanop- and not Balanopaid-, the c o r r e c t spelling of the family name would appear
to be Balanopaceae.
Is Epacridaceae correctly formed?
Are the differences in spelling between Alismataceae and
Lacistemaceae, derived from Alisma and Lacistema, consistent? Should we conserve family names that a r e spelled
incorrectly ?
-
-
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 156
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
There follows a long list headed "Nomina generica conservandal'. Upon examination, the lists a r e found to be made
up of proposals (printed in italics) not officially acted upon
and of those (in bold face) officially accepted by the ConOne proposal only would s e e m to concern bacterigress.
ologists even remotely, i t is that which under Bacillariophyta rejects Gaillonella Bary 1823 and conserves Melosira
Kiitzine
The variant Gallionella has not been d i s " 1833.
posed of; this is of interest because i t has been used a s a
generic name in bacteriology.
Aninteresting addition to the rules is Article 26 which states
that "rules of priority and typification do not apply to names
of taxa above the rank of order". Recommendations suggest the use of the suffix -phyta for names of divisions, except that for the fungi divisional names should end in
cots. Phyta is evidently the plural of the Greek neuter phyturn, but of what is -mycota the neuter plural? Is there not
here some etymological inconsistency? The recommendation also states "Words of Greek origin a r e generally p r e ferable".
The recommended c l a s s ending for Fungi is
-mycetes.One may speculate uqon the etymology of class
names of flowering plants which should have the plural neut e r ending -opsida.
Perhaps the authors or proponents of
these endings might be persuaded to discuss their derivation and use in some issue of Taxon.
-=-
-
The new Article 27 specifies that the names of o r d e r s and
suborders shall be derived from the names of the type families and the names of taxa between family and genus from
the names of type genera or from synonyms of such names.
This is nomenclaturally one of the most important innovations. The bacteriologists now require that such names be
derived from the names of contained genera, with a recommendation that the names of the type genera be used, the
botanist require that the names be chosen from the namea
of type genera o r synonyms, and the zoologists require that
they be formed f r o m the names of the type genera. There
would seem to be no very good reason to continue the differences between the bacteriological and botanical codes.
Permission is given in Article 28 t o use ten listed family
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
P a g e 157
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
names which do not conform t o the rule but which have been
long recognized in botany, though the corresponding c o r rectly formed names a r e a l s o validated.
Article 29 is in the pattern of Article 28, i t specifies that
names of subfamilies, t r i b e s and subtribes a r e plural adjectives f o r m e d f r o m the names of type g e n e r a o r synonyms
by the addition of appropriate endings.
Articles 30-32 inclusive expand the directives with reference
to the formation of the names of genera and subdivisions.
In Article 30 there has been some change in phraseology.
"Thename of a genus is a substantive, o r a n adjective used
as a substantive, in the singular number." Two p h r a s e s
havebeendroppedfrom the old Article 25 to which this c o r responds; "written with an initial capital" and "which may
be compared with our family names".
Probably few will
mourn the deletion of the second of the two p h r a s e s , but one
wonders why there is no longer the requirement to capitalize generic names.
I t is not probable that this deletion
will change the custom. The rules have not specifically r e quired the u s e of capital l e t t e r s for any other taxa, and the
new statement makes for uniformity in wording in the s e v e r a l
articles.
However, in view of the emphasis laid upon use
of initial capitals in specific and infraspecific epithets in
Recommendation 82G it might have been well to have included i n an appropriate a r t i c l e a note recognizing and legalizing the universal custom of writing the names of all gene r a , of all suprageneric taxa, and of subgeneric epithets
with initial capital letters. It is of i n t e r e s t to note that in
Article 31 the directive for formation of epithets f o r subsections and lower subdivisions state that there a r e "preferably plural adjectives agreeing i n gender with the generic
name and written with a capital letter". The index (p. 220)
fails to note this authorization.
Article 31 includes s e v e r a l innovations, some of them ( a t
l e a s t to the reviewer) confusing. The f i r s t two p a r a g r a p h s
of this article read: "The name of a subdivision of a genus
is a combination of a generic name and a subdivisional epithet connected by a t e r m (subgenus, section, s e r i e s , etc. )
denoting the rank of the subdivision.
F o r subgenera and
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 158
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
sections such epithets a r e usually substantives resembling
the names of the genera". The first question relates to the
use of the t e r m subdivision. In Article 13 division and
division a r e defined a s names to be applied to taxonomic
groups between classes and 'vRegnumvegetabile". Unfortunately for biology the botanists have continued to use these
t e r m s instead of the words phylum. and subphylum which do
not add to confusion. When one examines the index (p. 225)
one reference is found to subdivisio, six references to subdivision, six references to subdivisional epithet and four
references to subdivisional name. It is confusing to use a
common English word such a s subdivision in so many senses.
+-
Under Article 13 subgenus, section and subsection a r e definitely recognized a s categories of taxa. The use of the
t e r m epithets rather than names f o r the names of these taxa
is debatable.
The following footnote is given i n explanation of the use of "Subdivisional epithetfq. !'The editorial
Committee decided unanimously that, for subdivisions of
genera, the second p a r t of the name should be termed the
s ubdivi s ional epithet in acc o rdanc e with recent p rac tic ell.
The whole tenor of Article 31 runs counter to practice in
bacteriology and in zoology.
F o r example in both of these
fields a subgenus is regarded from the standpoint of nomenclature a s having the same status a s a genus. F u r t h e r more the biological world has become accustomed to the
use of epithet in the phrase specific epithet where i t is c o r rectly used in the sense of Ira descriptive adjective noun o r
phrase". Why the name of a subgenus should be regarded
as a descriptive phrase o r word is not a t all clear.
There i s also lack of consistency between the phraseologies
of Articles 31 and 32. The latter article states "the subgenus containing the type species of a generic name m u s t bear
that name unaltered". Note that here a subgenus i s definitely regarded as a taxon having a name and is not designated a s a subgeneric epithet.
Confusion is certainly also increased by validation of the
use of the same subgeneric names i n different genera. A
subgeneric name becomes an appropriate generic name
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 159
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND T A X O N O M Y
when a genus is divided.
A generic name becomes an appropriate subgeneric name when genera a r e united.
Article 33 as revised clarifies somewhat the treatment of
specific epithets which consist of m o r e than one word. It
r e a d s i n part: "If an epithet consists of two words, these
m u s t either be united o r hyphened. This phraseology might
imply that epithets containing m o r e than two words should
It is common
be rejected.
This surely is not intended.
custom in the naming of species of parasitic fungi to use as
the specific epithet the name of the host, placed in the genitive. Strict application of the rule as phrased would make
questionable the acceptability of names of host species if
these already contain a specific epithet of two words.
There is a useful addition to the rule: "Epithets not so
joined when originally published a r e not to be rejected but
when used must be hyphened.
The Subsection 6 "Names of taxa below the rankof species"
consisting of Articles 34-37 has been largely rewritten and
clarified. The f i r s t statement of Article 3 4 is helpful: "For
nomenclatural purposes, a species o r any taxon below the
rankof species is regarded as the sum of its lower taxa, i f
any. I 1
The extent to which subdivision of species may be c a r r i e d is
illustrated by the examp1e:Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f o r m a multicaulis subforma surculosa Engl e r and Irmsch. This is reminiscent of the attempts on the
p a r t of bacteriologists to classify the serotypes in certain
bacterial genera such as Salmonella.
Article 34, a160 includes a new concept, stated as follows:
"The description of a subordinated taxon which does not include the nomenclatural type of the higher taxon automatically c r e a t e s a second subordinated taxon of the s a m e rank
which has as its nomenclatural type the type of the higher
taxon".
This is a m o r e generalized statement of a portion
of Rule 7 in the Bacteriological Code which reads: "If the
species is divided into subspecies, the subspecific epithet
of the subspecies containing the typeof the species shall be
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 160
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
the s a m e as that of the species".
One marked difference between the Botanical and Bacteriological Codes is evidenced by comparison with Rule 7 of
the l a t t e r which specifie s that "neither within the s a m e spe
cies nor within the s a m e genus may two subspecies b e a r
the s a m e subspecific epithet".
The Botanical Code (Article 36) p e r m i t s the use of the same epithet for subdivisions
of different species even those of the s a m e genus, but (Recommendation 37C) recommends that such names be avoided. The tendency in bacteriology is to magnify the importance of the subspecific epithet, making it a l m o s t coordinate nomenclaturally with the specific epithet. This has its
manifest advantages, when a species is divided, a subspecific epithet becomes a specific epithet, and when species
a r e united,specific epithets become subspecific.
-
Section 5 relating to "Conditions and dates of effective publication" have been modified and clarified.
F o r the m o s t
part, they parallel the provisions of the Bacteriological
Code insofar as they a r e applicable to microbiology.
Section 6 (Articles 42-54 inclusive, Recommendations 42A
and 54A-54L) expands somewhat the "Conditions and dates
of valid publication".
One statement f r o m Article 42 is
worthy of some comment.
It r e a d s : "On and after 1 Jan.
1953, new t r a n s f e r s o r new combinations will be considered
validly published only when the basonym (name-bringing or
epithet-bringing synonym) is c l e a r l y indicated with i t s author and the place and date of publication". The t e r m b a s onym is increasingly used in discussions of old species
which have been renamed. Such basonyms have been c a r e F o r exfully noted in many monographs on the bacteria.
ample, in the sixthedition of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, p.774, one finds that Burkholder @. 165)
scariolae
gives a new combination Xanthomonas lactucae
(Thornberry and Anderson) comb. nov. He notes as a synonym Phytomonas lactucae
scariolae Thornberry and Anderson, Phytopath. , 27:109, 1937. The species when t r a n s f e r r e d to the genus Xanthomonas h a s as its b a s o n y m P h y tomonas lactucae scariolae, the epithet-bringing synonym.
-
-
-
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 161
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND T A X O N O M Y
Certain recommendations a r e of interest. 54A states: "The
name of a new taxon should not be published without indication of its type and, if possible, the place where the type is
preserved. I t The statement is somewhat ambiguous as obviously one cannot indicate the place where the type of a
family is preserved. Probably the statement should be interpreted to mean that types of all newly named taxa should
be designated, and where possible, the place should be noted where the type of each species and subdivision of a
This admonition is becoming of inspecies is preserved.
creasing importance in bacteriology.
There is also some element of ambiguity i n Recommendation 54C which states: l l A ~ t h ~should
rs
avoid adoption of an
epithet which has been previously published in an illegitimate combination." This would seem to mean that in giving
a new name to a previously described species one should
avoid using in the new species name an epithet that had p r e viously been used i n an older illegitimate name for the
species. One is surprised after this admonition to find that
i n Article 81 provision is explicitly made to use such an
epithet i f there is in the new position no obstacle to its use.
Section 7 on "Citation of author's names and of literature
for purposes of precisionl'includes a new Article 57 of considerable interest to those who in bacteriology a r e discussing the wisdomof the conservation of the genus Bacterium.
The Article reads: "Retention of a name in a sense which
excludes the type can be effected only by conservation.
When a name is conserved S O as to exclude its type, it must
not be ascribed to the original author with such expressions
a s emend.,mutatis charact., etc. ; but the name of the author whose concept is conserved must be cited a s authority. ' I
Pertinent is also Recommendation 60G: l r I f a generic name
antedated by one of its synonyms o r by a homonym is valid
on account of being a nomenconservandum, the words nom.
conserv. should be added to the citation."
The generic
Bacterium a s recommended for conservationwould be Bacterium Lehmann and Neumann, 1896 nom. conserv. non
Bacterium Ehrenberg 1828.
The second and third paragraphs of Article 73 which deal
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 162
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
with legitimacy of epithets a r e not easily understood, and on
f i r s t reading they may s e e m to be contradictory. Article 73
states:
"The publication of an epithet i n an illegitimate
combination m u s t not be taken into consideration f o r p u r poses of priority except in the rejection of a l a t e r homonym. I t
The next paragraph reads "A specific epithet is not illegitimate merely because it was originally published under an
illegitimate generic name, but m u s t be taken into consideration for purposes of priority if the epithet and the c o r r e s ponding combination a r e in other r e s p e c t s i n accordance
with the rules." It would s e e m that the illegitimacy of a
binomial may be determined either by the legitimacy of the
specific epithet o r by the legitimacy of the generic name o r
both. The rule apparently means that the legitimacy of a
specific epithet i s not determined by the legitimacy of the
accompanying generic name, but only by the history of s p e cific epithets previously applied to this species.
Throughout the code is the implicit recognition of the fact that
a specific epithet i s not the name of a taxon. Rule 74 states: "A
name of a taxon is illegitimate and m u s t be rejected if i t is
a l a t e r homonym, that is if it duplicates a name previously
and validly published for the name of a taxon of the s a m e
rank based on a different type. I I It is apparent that the l e gitimacy of a specific epithet is not determined by this a r ticle.
Attention has already been called to the fact that Article 81
definitely approves what is urged as undesirable i n Recommendation 54G.
Article 82 relating to orthography of names and epithets h a s
been somewhat modified. It now reads: "The original spelling of a name o r epithet m u s t be retained, except typographi c o r orthographic e r r o r s .
When two o r m o r e generic
names a r e so s i m i l a r , and the plants s o closely related, a s
to cause confusion they a r e to be t r e a t e d as variants of the
s a m e name. I t A footnote states: "When i t is doubtful whether names a r e sufficiently alike to be confused, they should
be r e f e r r e d to the General Committee of Botanical Nomenclature.
Several of the notes appended i n Article 82 a r e of
i n t e r e s t in bacteriology.
Note 2 states:
"The use o f a
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
P a g e 163
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
wrong connectingvowelorvowels ( o r the omission of a connecting vowel) in a name o r epithet is t r e a t e d as an orthographic e r r o r . ' I Strict observance of this regulation would
lead to a g r e a t number of changes in bacteriology.
This
would be particularly true of compound adjectives derived
f r o m Latin words i n which the connecting vowel h a s been
quite commonly -2- instead of -i-.
-
Note 4 is a l s o of interest: "When changes made i n orthography by e a r l i e r authors who adopt personal n a m e s in nomenclature a r e intentional latinieations they m u s t be p r e
served.
We find for example specific epithets i n b a c t e r i ology derived f r o m the name of P a s t e u r spelled i n some
c a s e s by the author as pastorianus andby others as p a s t e u r ianus.
-
-
An example of retention of an original spelling l e s s d e s i r a ble philologically is the deliberate choice by Linneaus of
h a r a n t u s instead of the better Amaranthus. This p a r a l l e l s
the choice of the specific epithet megaterium as used by
deBary r a t h e r than the philologically better megatherium.
The retention of original epelling applies a l s o to differences
i n ending of Greek words t r a n s l i t e r a t e d into Latin, f o r example, Phoradendron Nutt. m u s t not be altered t o P h o r a dendrum. The citation of ceylanica and zeylanica as examples of orthographic variants is of interest.
The fact that the zoological directive for the formation of
the genitive f r o m the name of a man in the making of a apecific epithet is to add -iwhile the general directive i n botany and in bacteriology is to add -2 has led to much conRecommendation 82C (d)
fusion in biological literature.
s t a t e s that:
"When the name ends in a consonant, the l e t t e r s -% a r e added, except when the name ends in-=, then
-i is added. P e r m i s s i o n to c o r r e c t such specific epithets
eGding in a single -2 is given a s follows: "Those who follow this Recommendation may t r e a t the termination -2 as
an orthographic e r r o r and c o r r e c t it. I t
Recommendation 82F reads: "New specific epithets should
be writtenin conformity with the spelling of the words f r o m
which they a r e derived and in accordance with the accepted
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23
Page 164
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
usage of Latin and latinization. The last p a r t of this statement again calls attention to the failure of the botanists to
outline accepted usage in the latinization of Greek words.
Recommendation 82H is a v e r y helpful statement by R. E.
Latham with reference to c l a s s i c a l usage i n the formation
of compoundnames andepithets f r o m Greek o r Latin. These
should be formed a s far as p r a c t i c a l in accordance with
c l a s s i c a l usage. Of particular significance is the following
statement (d): "If the s t e m ends in a consonant, a connecting vowel, Greek
Latin
is i n s e r t e d b e f o r e a following consonant. Some i r r e g u l a r f o r m s , however, have been
extensively used through f a l s e analogy (atro-purpureus, on
the analogy of pseudo-compounds such as fusco-venatus in
which -2-i s the ablative case-ending).
Where such i r r e gularities occur in the original spelling of existing compounds, this spelling should normally be retained." This
would s e e m to justify the retention of such epithets and
names a s albidoflavus, albocerus, Aureogenus, nigromaculans and atrofaciens, so commonly used in bacteriology.
-c-,
-1-,
-
REFERENCE
Lanjouw, J., Chief Editor; Ch. Baehni, E. D. M e r r i l l ,
H. W. Rickett, W. Robyn, T. A. Sprague, Members of
the Editorial Committee, and F. A. Stafleu, S e c r e t a r y
of the Committee. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, avec une Traduction F r a n c a i s e p a r Ch. Baehni
Utrecht, Holland. September 1952. English text 159 pp.
F r e n c h text pp. 160-219.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:43:23