INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN OF BACTERIOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY
Volume 12, No. 1
J a n u a r y 15, 1962
p p - 17-26
TYPIFICATION I N BACTERIOLOGY
R . E . Buchanan
Department of B a c t e r i o logy
Iowa State University
A m e s , Iowa, USA
ABSTRACT. T h e B a c t e r i o l o g i c a l , B o t a n i c a l a n d
Zoological Codes as well a s several authors
h a v e p r o p o s e d o r r e c o g n i z e d t h e u s e of t e r m s
t o d e s i g n a t e t h e n a t u r e of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n t h e " t y p e " of a s p e c i e s , a s u b s p e c i e s
o r a n i n f r a s u b s p e c i f i c f o r m on t h e o n e h a n d ,
and related specimens, cultures o r strains
on the o t h e r .
Twenty-one t e r m s a r e listed,
defined a n d s o m e p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p to bacteriologica1 nomenclature indicated.
The
t e r m s discussed a r e archecultype, cotype,
holocultype, holotype, homocultype, graphoc u 1 t y p e , 1e c t o t y p e , l e c t o c u 1 t y p e, m e r o c u I t y p e,
n om en c l a t u r a 1
m o n o c u 1t y p e ,
m e t a c u It y p e ,
type, paracultype, paratype, syncultype, syntype, thanotocultype, type, type culture, type
specimen, and type strain.
Sneath and Cowan (1958) have emphasized the importance
i n modern bacteriological taxonomy of having r e f e r e n c e
s t r a i n s which give fixed points f o r comparison a n d can s e r v e
a s bench m a r k s in taxonomic s u r v e y s . They note that type
c u l t u r e s ( o r s t r a i n s ) a r e lacking f o r most s p e c i e s of b a c t e r i a ,
and designate f o r the purpose of their study of the application
of "Adansonian principles" to taxonomy a s e r i e s of "tempor a r y working type s t r a i n s " of o r g a n i s m s studied f o r which
authentic type s t r a i n s w e r e not available. They state: "The
importance of type s t r a i n s i s that they determine the application of n a m e s whenever taxa a r e r e a r r a n g e d . " They a l s o
note that i n the absence pf designated type s t r a i n s of b a c t e r i a
the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on
Bacteriological Nomenclature may approve neotype s t r a i n s
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
P a g e 18
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
o r cultures. They state f u r t h e r : "There a r e v a r i o u s n a m e s
f o r types used in botany which indicate different d e g r e e s of
reliability when a type h a s not been designated." An equivalent statement would be that n e a r n e s s o r degree of relationship to t r u e type s t r a i n s i s shown by the n a m e s of such a
s e r i e s . The International Code of Nomenclature of B a c t e r i a
and V i r u s e s (1958, 56) recognizes only "type" and "neotype."
Sneath and Cowan suggest the u s e of s i x categories following the "convenient nomenclature" of Ainsworth and Bisby
(1 945), namely holotype, p a r a t y p e , cotype, isotype, lectotype and neotype.
The Botanical Code of Nomenclature
authorizes the use of t h r e e names, holotype, lectotype and
neotype, and m a k e s optional the u s e of an additional t h r e e ,
isotype, paratype and syntype. The long expected i s s u e of
the emended Zoological Code h a s not yet appeared a t the
time of this writing, but i t i s a s s u m e d that the B r a d l e y
Draft (1957) p r e s e n t e d a t the London International Zoological
Congress (1958) reasonably r e p r e s e n t s zoological p r a c t i c e .
This d r a f t recognizes f o u r n a m e s applicable to typification,
namely holotype, lectotype, syntype and neotype.
The question r a i s e d inferentially by Sneath a n d Cowan is
whether the Bacteriological Code adequately t r e a t s the
typification of species, subspecies and infrasub specific
f o r m s of the b a c t e r i a . This communication i s an effort to
a s s e s s the possible usefulness of the v a r i o u s t e r m s proposed in the s e v e r a l codes and by c e r t a i n authors to the
solution of the p r o b l e m s of typification in the b a c t e r i a .
Typification in a l l t h r e e disciplines , Botany, Zoology and
Bacteriology i s dependent (with some noted exceptions) upon
the recognition under international r u l e s of ''type specimens"
which a r e the s t a n d a r d s with which other "specimens" a r e
compared f o r purpose of identification.
One of the r e a s o n s why i t was deemed advisable to develop a code of nomenclature f o r the b a c t e r i a distinct f r o m
the Botanical Code was the r e f u s a l of the Taxonomic Section
of the International C o n g r e s s e s adequately to recognize that
with some groups of plants the "type specimen" m u s t be a
living specimen. The Botanical Code explicitly s t a t e s (Recommendation 8B) "When living m a t e r i a l i s designated a s a
type, appropriate p a r t s of i t should b e immediately p r e served."
This might have been i n t e r p r e t e d to m e a n that
a subculture of a type culture ( s t r a i n ) of b a c t e r i a could be
s a i d to " p r e s e r v e " the type s t r a i n . This interpretation was
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
Page 1 9
B A C T E R I O L O G 1 C A L N O M E N C L A TU R E
AND TAXONOMY
definitely disapproved by the decision of the 1958 Montreal
Botanical Congress that a type specimen m u s t be "nonliving." The votes of the various committees (except that of
the Committee on Fungi) w e r e against recognition of a continuing "living type specimen." B u t b a c t e r i a that have been
d r i e d o r "pickled" have proved to be wholly unsatisfactory
a s types. The recognition that descriptions and i l l u s t r a t i o n s
may be recognized a s types when living types a r e unavailable
i s helpful, but not sufficient i n many c a s e s . The B a c t e r i o logical Code i s unique i n that i t includes a directive that
w h e r e v e r possible the type specimen should be a living cult u r e , but that'if one i s not available the o r i g i n a l description
i s the "type" until a suitable neotype h a s been discovered,
proposed and approved,
The designation of type c u l t u r e s of b a c t e r i a p r e s e n t s
many p r o b l e m s . The p r o b l e m with which we a r e i m m e d i ately concerned h a s to do p r i m a r i l y with the t e r m s u s e d to
identify a bacteriological type specimen a n d the t e r m s used
to designate r e l a t e d specimens. Though these terms a r e of
importance in nomenclature, t h e r e e x i s t s some confusion
in the t h r e e disciplines of botany, bacteriology and zoology
a s t o the t e r m s to be u s e d . The fact that b a c t e r i a l ''type
specimens" m u s t be living (viable) r e q u i r e s s p e c i a l c a r e in
the definition of these explanatory t e r m s .
D r . B r a d l e y (1957, 138) in h i s foreword to the Draft
P r o p o s a l for A r t i c l e 20 "Types of s p e c i e s and of lower c a t e gories" of the Zoological Code classified words ending in
''-type" into two groups a s follows:
"The t e r m type f o r m s p a r t of many compound words
u s e d by taxonomists to designate c a t e g o r i e s of specim e n s that a r e useful to t h e m but have no nomenclatural
significance, a r e not " n a m e - b e a r e r s ,
Topotype,
homotype, metatype, morphotype, allotype a r e examples.
This Code i s concerned only with those types that a r e
"name b e a r e r s " i n the s e n s e t h a t each d e t e r m i n e s to
what taxonomic group the n a m e f o r which i t stands
applies. Amongst species and lower c a t e g o r i e s these
a r e only holotype, lectotype, neotype and syntype. I '
The Bacteriological Code a l s o recognizes a l i s t of ''types''
whose status a s " n a m e - b e a r e r s " i s questionable, namely
biotype, serotype, morphotype and phagotype.
These a r e
not included in the following discussion.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
P a g e 20
I N TERNATIONA L B ULLE TIN
The Botanical Code (1956, A r t . 7, p . 14-15) recognizes
and defines holotype, lectotype and neotype, and in Recommendation 8A f u r t h e r recommends f o r specimens of special
i n t e r e s t isotype, p a r a t y p e and syntype.
C i f e r r i (1957) proposed a n interesting s e r i e s of n a m e s
introduced by the following statement:
"The recomme ndations of the International Code
(Botanical) on the nomenclature of types can only r a r e l y
be applied to m i c r o o r g a n i s m s growing in culture in
laboratory media: i t is only incompletely and with
difficulty that they can be t r a n s p o s e d f r o m higher to
lower plants and f,rom h e r b a r i u m specimens to laborat o r y c u l t u r e s . 'I
C i f e r r i l a t e r i n a similar discussion s t a t e s :
"While the t e r m s prpposed may be regarded a s
p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate to t h e fungi, they may have
r e a l application a l s o i n the field of microbiology,
p a r t i c u l a r l y bacteriology. I '
To avoid conflict with the Botanical Code (which i n s i s t s that
type specimens be non-living), h e suggests that a type cult u r e of an o r g a n i s m b e designated a "cuttype" and p r o p o s e s
the following compounds of cultype f o r p a r t i c u l a r needs:
A r che cultype , Ho locultype, Paracultype, Syncu 4type,
Homocultype, Lectocultype, Merocultype, Monocultype,
Metacultype, Graphocultype and Thanotocultype
.
Sneath and Cowan (l.5.) follow Ainsworth and Bixby (1950,
343) in the u s e of holotype, paratype, cotype, isotype, lectotype and neotype.
The t e r m s proposed o r used by the s e v e r a l a u t h o r s noted
above may appropriately be a s s e s s e d a s to t h e i r appropriaten e s s and usefulness i n bacteriology. They a r e listed alphabetically below with a view to possible utilization i n a r e v i sion of Rule 9 of the Bacteriological Code which c o n c e r n s
the designation of nomenclatural types and type specimens.
The r e s t r i c t i o n s of the Botanical Code do not apply i n
Bacteriology.
T h e r e f o r e the use of the s t e m "cult" i n f o r mulation of the words seefns unnecessary in this discipline.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
Page 21
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A N D TAXONOMY
The C i f e r r i t e r m s a r e listed below because they in some
c a s e s have meanings that might be useful i n bacteriological
nomenclature and b e c a u s e the prefixes used might well be
employed in compounds that did not include the s t e m "cult."
The C i f e r r i definitions given below a r e d i r e c t quotations.
Archecultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n cultivated by the author
of the botanical taxon but lost o r suffering a n i r r e v e r s i b l e
modification before a n exhaustive study. The taxon cannot be recognized with a reasonable certainty.''
Cotype. (Ainsworth and Bisby) "Any specimen (when m o r e
than one) of the author's m a t e r i a l (when no type (holotype))
h a s been named." (Sneath and Cowan) "Any specimen of
the describing a u t h o r ' s collection i f he did not designate
a holotype s t r a i n . 'I A synonym of syntype. The Zoologic a l Code (Bradley Draft p. 140) Recommendation 6 r e a d s
"To avoid misunderstanding zoologists should not u s e the
t e r m cotype.
B r a d l e y ' s "Glossary" r e a d s "A word f o r m e r l y in u s e f o r syntype but which should be avoided."
The word cotype i s a nomen hybridium.
Holocultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n cultivated by the author of
the taxon, and the culture fully d e s c r i b e d and cited a s
type by the s a m e taxonomist. The o r i g i n a l s t r a i n i s still
maintained in culture without evident modification. ' I The
i s)probably p r e f e r a b l e i n bacteriolt e r m Holotype ( ~ 5 .
ogy
Holotype. This t e r m i s not specificallyincluded in t h e r u l e s
of the Bacteriological Code but might well b e . In b a c teriology the equivalent i s "type culture" 9.2. It is r e cognized i n both Botanical and Zoological Codes. (Bota n i c a l Code 1956, A r t . 7, p. 14.).
"A "holotype" (type) i s
the one specimen o r other element used by the author o r
designated by him a s the nomenclatural type. F o r s o
long a s a holotype is extant, i t automatically fixes the
application of the name concerned." (Bradley Draft copy,
Zoological Code). "The single specimen, if any, designated o r indicated a s "the type" by the original author a t
the time of the publication of the original description.''
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
Page 22
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
Homocultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n a s f a r a s possible identified with the archecultype, but f r o m another source o r
isolate." The possibility that an analogue of this t e r m
i n t h e f o r m "homotype" might be useful in bacteriology
m e r i t s some consideration.
Graphocultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "The f i r s t description o r photograph o r drawing of the holocultype, in t h e absence of the
c u l t u r e . 'I The Bacteriological Code (1958) s t a t e s (Rule
9a, p . 5 3 ) that the "nomenclatural. type of a species o r
subspecies i s preferably an authentic culture, but i t may
be a specimen o r preparation, illustration o r description."
A note to Rule 9d r e a d s : "For a species that cannot be
maintained i n laboratory c u l t u r e s o r for which neither
type c u l t u r e s nor neotype cultures exist, the type i s the
original description, p r e p a r a t i o n o r illustration. ' I An
analogue to the f o r m "graphotype" might be considered
a s to i t s possible usefulness i n bacteriology.
Lectocultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n cultivated by the author of
the taxon, and selected a s holocultype by another student."
P r e s u m a b l y equivalent to lectotype, g.v,.
Lectotype. This t e r m h a s been little u s e d i n bacteriology.
I t s usefulness m a y be worthy of consideration. The following definitions a r e extant:
.
(Ainsworth and Bisby 1950) "A type taken l a t e r f o r a
group f o r which the author n a m e s no type.
(Botanical Code 1956, A r t . 7 , p.15) "A lectotype i s a
specimen o r o t h e r element selected f r o m the original
m a t e r i a l to s e r v e a s nomenclatural type when the holotype was not designated a t the time of publication for so
long a s i t i s missing.
The g l o s s a r y of B r a d l e y ' s Draft Zoological Code (1957)
r e a d s : "A single specimen selected f r o m a s e r i e s of
syntypes, subsequent to the establishment of the nominal
species, to be "the type.'' A lectotype has the nomenc l a t u r a l value of a holotype.
Merocultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n derived f r o m a mixed o r
impure (contaminated) holotype. ' I The usefulness of this
t e r m o r i t s analogue in bacteriology s e e m s questionable.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
Page 2 3
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
Metacultype, ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n p e r m a n e n t l y modified but
d e r i v e d f r o m t h e holotype." P e r h a p s i n a modified f o r m
( a s m e t a t y p e ) t h i s might b e u s e f u l i n b a c t e r i o l o g y t o d e s i g nate a v a r i a n t o r mutant s t r a i n d e r i v e d f r o m a type
culture.
Monocultype.
( C i f e r r i ) "A m o n o s p o r i a l (monogenetic o r
monocytogenetic) s t r a i n d e r i v e d f r o m the holotype ''
P e r h a p s i n a modified f o r m ( a s monotype) t h i s m i g h t b e
u s e f u l i n b a c t e r i o l o g y i n designating a s t r a i n f r o m a single
c e l l i s o l a t i o n , including s t r a i n s f r o m single s p o r e s , a s
f r o m Bacillus o r Streptomyces.
.
Neotype. ( B a c t e r i o l o g i c a l Code 1958, Rule 9d, Note C) "A
neotype c u l t u r e i s one which h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d by i n t e r national a g r e e m e n t t o r e p l a c e a type c u l t u r e which i s no
longer i n e x i s t e n c e . It should a g r e e with the d i a g n o s i s
given by the o r i g i n a l d e s c r i b e r a n d should b e r e c o m mended by those w o r k e r s familiar with the s p e c i e s , a n d
t h e i r a g r e e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a p p r o v e d by the J u d i c i a l
Commission.
( B r a d l e y G l o s s a r y , Draft Zoological Code, 1957) "A
single s p e c i m e n , identified with a d e s c r i b e d nominal
s p e c i e s a n d d e s i g n a t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e with t h e p r o v i s i o n s
of A r t i c l e 20 a s a unique s t a n d a r d of r e f e r e n c e t o r e p l a c e
a holotype o r lectotype that i s believed to have been Lost
o r destroyed.
(Botanical Code, A r t i c l e 7) "A neotype i s a s p e c i m e n
s e l e c t e d to s e r v e a s n o m e n c l a t u r a l type f o r s o long a s a l l
of the m a t e r i a l on which the name of t h e taxon w a s b a s e d
i s missing."
N o m e n c l a t u r a l Type, ( B a c t e r i o l o g i c a l Code, P r i n c i p l e 11)
"A n o m e n c l a t u r a l type i s that constituent e l e m e n t of a
taxon to which the n a m e of the taxon i s p e r m a n e n t l y a t tached."
The B o t a n i c a l Code i s somewhat m o r e explicit
in that t h e r e i s added the p h r a s e "whether a s a n a c c e p t e d
n a m e o r a s a synonym." The Zoological Code u s e s quite
a different t e r m i n o lo gy
.
P a r a c u l t y p e . ( C i f e r r i ) "A s t r a i n cultivated by the a u t h o r of
the taxon a n d quoted i n the o r i g i n a l d e s c r i p t i o n but not
the s e l e c t e d holotype. " See P a r a t y p e .
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
Page 24
INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN
P a r a t y p e . (Ainsworth and Bisby) "Any specimen other than
the holotype on which the f i r s t account of a s p e c i e s o r
other group i s based."
Syncultype. ( C i f e r r i ) "Any s t r a i n cultivated by the author of
the name of the taxon and quoted in the original d e s c r i p tion when a holotype h a s not been selected." See Syntype.
.Syntype. (Botanical Code Recommendation 8A) "A syntype
i s one of two o r m o r e specimens u s e d by the author when
no holotype was designated, o r one of two o r m o r e specimens simultaneously designated a s type. ' I
(Bradley's G l o s s a r y Draft Zoological Code) "One of a
number of specimens of equal nomenclatural rank which
f o r m e d a l l o r p a r t of the m a t e r i a l of a nominal species
before the original author, in c a s e he did not designate
o r indicate a holotype." Syntypes a r e not recognized i n
the Bacteriological Code, A study should be made a s to
possible usefulness.
Thanotocultype, ( C i f e r r i ) "A d r i e d o r p r e s e r v e d , not living,
specimen, o r a microscopic slide p r e p a r e d f r o m t h e holocultype."
The usefulness of such a t e r m (perhaps a s
thanototype) i s r a t h e r doubtful, but might well be explored.
Type. (Bradley's Glossary, Draft Zoological Code) "The
standard r e f e r e n c e f o r determining the meaning of the
name of a nominal taxon, the n a m e - b e a r e r .
The type of
a species o r lower taxon is a specimen, that of a genus,
a species.
See Nomenclatural Type.
Type Culture. (Bacteriological Code Rule 9d, Note b) "A
type culture i s a living culture of an o r g a n i s m which is a
descendent of the original culture o r isolation f r o m which
the author who f i r s t d e s c r i b e d the o r g a n i s m made h i s
original description, which culture h a s been maintained
pure, and which a g r e e s i n i t s c h a r a c t e r s w i t h the original
description. " This t e r m i s not recognized i n t h e Botanic a l o r Zoological Codes.
Type Strain. The t e r m "type strain" i s found with i n c r e a s ing frequency i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e of taxonomic bacteriology,
u s u a l l y w i t h t h e s a m e meaning a s type culture. It is a
convenient de signation of the type specimen.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
P a g e 25
BACTERIOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
AND TAXONOMY
One of the p r o b l e m s that n e e d s c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e taxonomist i n bacteriology i s what s h a l l b e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of the t e r m "individual.
The B a c t e r i o l o g i c a l Code ( P r i n ciple 7) s t a t e s that " E v e r y individual is t r e a t e d a s belonging
to a n u m b e r of c a t e g o r i e s of consecutive r a n k a n d consecutively s u b o r d i n a t e ; of t h e s e t h e s p e c i e s is t h e b a s i c o n e . "
The c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t a t e m e n t i n t h e B o t a n i c a 1 Code i s " E v e r y
plant i s t r e a t e d a s belonging to a n u m b e r of t a x a o f consecutively subordinate r a n k s of which the s p e c i e s i s b a s i c . "
F r o m t h e standpoint of bacteriology, what do t h e b o t a n i s t s
r e g a r d a s a "plant" when they study b a c t e r i a ? What do
In b a c t e r i o l b a c t e r i o l o g i s t s recognize a s a n "individual"?
ogy t h e r e s e e m t o be a t l e a s t five kinds of individuals t o b e
considered.
1. An individual m a y b e defined a s a single b a c t e r i a l
c e l l , u s u a l l y , but not always s e p a r a t e d f r o m o t h e r s i m i l a r
c e l l s a n d functioning independently. A l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of
individuals i n t h e b a c t e r i a c o n f o r m to t h i s definition.
2. An individual i s that which develops f r o m a single
s p o r e o r r e p r o d u c t i v e body with the f o r m a t i o n of b r a n c h e d
hyphae a n d a m y c e l i u m in which the c e l l s r e m a i n united
d u r i n g vegetative growth.
The individual m a y b e m u l t i c e l l u l a r o r coenocytic. Most of the a c t i n o m y c e t e s belong in
this category.
3 . An individual c o n s i s t s of a chain of c e l l s which r e m a i n united d u r i n g vegetative growth, f o r m i n g a f i l a m e n t
(sometimes t e r m e d a trichome), in some f o r m s there may
b e s o m e morphological differentiation among the c e l l s . H e r e
m a y be p l a c e d o r g a n i s m s belonging t o s u c h g e n e r a a s C r e n o thrix.
4. An individual i s a population r e s u l t i n g f r o m the
multiplication of a single c e l l o r g r o u p of c e l l s showing i n dependent m e t a b o l i s m but coordinated motion a n d s t r i k i n g
cooperation in the f o r m a t i o n of f r u i t i n g bodies. H e r e belong
the m y x o b a c t e r s .
5. An individual i s a p u r e c u l t u r e of any o r g a n i s m o r
a s t r a i n perpetuated in pure culture.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24
Page 26
INTERNAT IONAL BULLETIN
What i s t h e m o s t u s e d a n d u s e f u l of t h e s e s u g g e s t e d definitions of a n individual? F r o m a point of view both p r a c t i c a l and u t i l i t a r i a n , i m p l i c i t in the r u l e s of b a c t e r i o l o g i c a l
n o m e n c l a t u r e , a p u r e c u l t u r e of a n o r g a n i s m o r s t r a i n i s
t r e a t e d a s a n individual.
Such a p u r e c u l t u r e c o n s t i t u t e s ,
when p r o p e r l y d e s i g n a t e d , t h e type s p e c i m e n of a s p e c i e s
of b a c t e r i a ,
Since the type s p e c i m e n c a n b e indefinitely
d u p l i c a t e d a n d m a d e g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e , c a r e f u l study of the
B a c t e r i o l o g i c a l Code s e e m s a d v i s a b l e to e n s u r e t h a t f u l l
a d v a n t a g e is t a k e n of t h i s distinguishing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
bacterial types.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, G . C . a n d G . R . B i s b y . 1950. A Dictionary of
t h e Fungi. 3 r d ed.
The Commonwealth Mycological
I n s t i t u t e , Kew, S u r r e y , England,
B r a d l e y , J . C . 1957. D r a f t of the E n g l i s h Text of t h e I n t e r national Code of Zoological N o m e n c l a t u r e a s a m e n d e d by
the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) C o n g r e s s e s .
B u l l . Zool. Nomen. e : 3 1 - 2 8 5 .
C i f e r r i , R . 1957. Type n o m e n c l a t u r e of m i c r o o r g a n i s m s
i n c u l t u r e . Taxon 6:154.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Code of B o t a n i c a l N o m e n c l a t u r e adopted by t h e
Eighth I n t e r n a t i o n a l B o t a n i c a l C o n g r e s s , P a r i s , J u l y ,
1954. U t r e c h t , N e t h e r l a n d s , 1956. 338 pp.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Code of N o m e n c l a t u r e of B a c t e r i a a n d v i r u s e s .
1958. Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , A m e s , Iowa, U . S . A .
186 pp.
Sneath, P . H . A . a n d S . T . Cowan. 1958. An e l e c t o taxonomic s u r v e y of b a c t e r i a .
J o u r . Gen. Microbiol.
1 9 5 5 1 -565.
* A proposal to r e w o r d c e r t a i n r u l e s and recommendations
of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Code of N o m e n c l a t u r e of B a c t e r i a a n d
V i r u s e s will b e published i n t h e A p r i l , 1962 i s s u e of t h e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l B u l l e t i n f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the J u d i c i a l
C o m m i s s i o n a n d the International Committee o n B a c t e r i o logical N o m e n c l a t u r e a t t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l
C o n g r e s s a t M o n t r e a l i n August, 1962.
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:24