The Branches Into Which Bacteriology Is Now Ramifying" Revisited

Home , Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Bacteriologist, Bacteriology

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

"The Branches into Which Bacteriology Is Now Ramifying" Revisited

J. W. Bennetta and J. Karrb aDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana; and bASM Archives, Albin 0. Kuhn Library, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Bal- timore, Maryland

The American Societyfor Microbiology was originallyfounded in 1899 as the Society ofAmerican Bacteriologists. The transitionfrom "bacteriology" to "microbiology" andfrom an emphasis on the identity ofthe membership (bacteriologists) to an emphasis on the discipline (microbiology) was a contentious one that occurred in several steps. This article reviews the history and events that accompanied this development.

The professional society now known were poorly understood. Committees of as the American Society for Microbiology SAB were instrumental in stabilizing and (ASM)C called itself the Society of Amer- clarifying bacterial taxonomy. As the pro- ican Bacteriologists (SAB) from 1899 found differences between prokaryotes until 1960. Although many members of and eukaryotes were elucidated, it became SAB studied non-bacterial life forms, for increasingly difficult to unify the microbi- decades they were comfortable calling ological sciences under the rubric "bacte- themselves bacteriologists. How did the riology." In changing the name, members term "bacteriology" come to stand for all of the society had come to agree that of microbiology in America? It is argued "bacteriology" was too restrictive a term that this scientific synecdoche was based to describe the full activities of the pro- on the fact that early bacteriologists dis- fession. Yet as SAB/ASM celebrates its tinguished themselves more by the meth- Centennial, microbiology itself may have ods they used than by the taxonomic sta- become a scientific synecdoche. Microbi- tus of the organisms they studied. In addi- ological systems and microbiological tion, at the time SAB was founded, Ger- techniques have permeated all of molecu- man scientific influences were strong, and lar and cell biology. Changes in profes- the systematics of microscopic life forms sional self-appellation have been reflected

b To whom all correspondence should be addressed: Mr. Jeff Karr, ASM Archives, Albin 0. Kuhn Library, UMBC, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250; Tel.: 410-455-3601; Fax: 410-455-1088; E-mail [email protected] c Abbreviations: SAB, Society of American Bacteriologists; ASM, American Society for Microbiology. Received June 20, 2000; accepted June 24, 2000. 303 304 Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? in the name of the Society's quarterly and systematics. More recently, hybrid review journal. Founded as Bacteriologi- labels are popular: biochemistry, bio- cal Reviews in 1937, and becoming physics, molecular biology, environmental Microbiological Reviews in 1977, the science, and so forth. journal renamed itself Molecular and Microbiology is often defined as "the Microbiological Reviews in 1997. scientific study of organisms too small to be seen with the naked eye." Viewed in this way, microbiology is a traditional but DEFINITIONS AND DESIGNATIONS "artificial" classification based on the A botanist is one who studies plants; minute size of the life forms under study. a zoologist is one who studies animals. By The formal taxonomic categories span this simple lexical logic, a bacteriologist is several kingdoms and include archebacte- one who studies bacteria. Nevertheless, ria, eubacteria, microfungi, protozoa, uni- from the time of its founding in 1899 as cellular algae, and viruses; the cognate the Society of American Bacteriologists, scientific disciplines are bacteriology, pro- the society now known as the American tozoology and virology; and parts of Society for Microbiology has included a mycology, parasitology, and phycology. substantial membership of scientists who When defined in this way, the essential studied organisms that were not bacteria tool of the microbiologist is the micro- (e.g., brewing yeasts, malarial protozoa, scope. Indeed, the compound microscope "filterable" viruses, and so forth). Why did is often employed as the defining icon of early microbiologists call themselves bac- the microbiological sciences; for example, teriologists? What is the difference it was adopted as the new ASM logo in between a bacteriologist and a microbiol- celebration of the Society's centennial ogist? Does it matter? (Figure lc). Nevertheless, despite the It has been said that we are all taxon- prominent exploitation of the microscope omists at heart. Certainly, among biolo- as a unifying symbol, it is not an entirely gists, there is a strong need to label and satisfactory emblem. Microbiologists are categorize our professional interests. concerned with much more than the size Sometimes distinctions are made between of organisms. Many outstanding microbi- applied and fundamental disciplines. ologists rarely if ever use a microscope. Applied biological sciences are subdivid- More importantly, early bacteriologists ed into categories such as agriculture, elucidated the nature of viruses, entities industry, and medicine. In recent years, too small to be seen with a light micro- the rubric "biotechnologist" has come into scope, by relying on the non-microscopic vogue, encompassing people in all three of tools of their trade. It is in these other tools these areas who use the new molecular that we must seek the origins and the tools of genetic engineering, immunology, nature of the profession that called itself genomics, and such. The fundamental bio- bacteriology. logical sciences are also divided up in various ways. Traditionally, the kind of organism studied is the organizational THE FOUNDING OF SAB principle of choice: e.g., mycology (the During the end of the nineteenth cen- study of fungi); phycology (the study of tury, a time of profound technological algae); protozoology (the study of proto- change and belief in scientific progress, zoa). Cross-organismal labels based in sci- many scientific disciplines were undergo- entific approach are also used: e.g., ecolo- ing a period of professionalization. The gy, genetics, neurobiology, physiology, Society of American Bacteriologists was Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? 305

Figure 1. ASM logos from 1916 to present. Figure la, left. Drawing by Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek used as logo in Journal of Bacteriology publications beginning in 1916. Fig- ure 1 b, center. Logo designed in 1974 for 75th anniversary of ASM. Figure 1c, right. Logo designed for ASM centennial in 1999. founded by three members of the Ameri- was presented; a constitution was adopted; can Society of Naturalists: A. C. Abbott Dr. William T. Sedgwick of MIT was (University of Pennsylvania), E. 0. Jordan elected president; and 59 people were (University of Chicago) and H. W. Conn enrolled as charter members (consisting of (Wesleyan University). According to pub- the 30 people attending the New Haven lished records, they met informally in meeting plus anyone else who had 1898 about the feasibility of establishing a responded to the letter of inquiry) [1, 2]. society devoted specifically to bacteriolo- Although some of the charter members gy, appointed themselves as a committee, worked with non-bacterial microbes, by and then sent out a letter describing their voting to adopt the constitution they called goals: themselves a Society ofAmerican Bacteri- It is thought that such an association will ologists. There is no record of a discussion conduce to unification of methods and about the consideration of the alternate aims, will emphasize the position of bacte- term, "microbiologists," and apparently riology as one of the biological sciences, none took place. and will bring together workers interested SAB held its next meeting at Balti- in the various branches into which bacteri- more, Maryland, in 1900. Sedgwick's ology is now ramifying [1, p. 287]. presidential address on "The Origin, In this and subsequent organizational Scope and Significance of Bacteriology" letters, the venture was referred to as "a attempted to define and circumscribe the society of American bacteriologists" or a discipline. The speech barely mentioned "proposed Society of American bacteriol- the microscope; rather, it addressed the ogists." Thus, at the earliest stages, there way in which early bacteriologists devel- was a presumption that what would form oped a number of special experimental the basis of the society was a common techniques to circumvent the difficulties interest in "bacteriology." The organiza- inherent in studying organisms invisible to tional meeting was held on December 28, the naked eye. Sedgwick began with a 1899, at Yale University in New Haven, grandiloquent genealogy: "Bacteriology is Connecticut, with approximately 30 peo- a child of the 19th century. It is the off- ple in attendance. A scientific program spring of chemistry and biology, enriched 306 Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? by physics with the gift of the achromatic bacteriologists were developing approach- microscope. . ." [3, p. 121]. Bacteriology, es unlike those used by other biologists. according to Sedgwick, traced its origins Before the era of industrial agriculture, to the study of fermentation, putrefaction, beekeeping was one of the purest forms of decomposition and decay, nitrification, animal monoculture. Sedgwick recognized spontaneous generation, and infectious that a defining criterion of the early bacte- diseases. Bacteriology, Sedgwick riologists was their practice of growing believed, resembled breeding, gardening bacterial monocultures in the laboratory. and agriculture more than disciplines such Thus, the cornerstone of the bacteriologi- as ornithology or bryology that defined cal/microbiological sciences was, and is, themselves by the organism they studied. an experimental attitude: the pure culture Curiously, he chose beekeeping (apicul- method, the application of Koch's postu- ture) as a particularly appropriate analogy. lates, the ready adoption of biochemical Bacteriology is a kind of microscopic hor- tests, and the search for the chemical ticulture or apiculture, and its methods, nature of biological phenomena. The con- introduced in the first instance by Pasteur tradiction to the usual lexical straightjack- for yeasts and twenty years later vastly et (bacteriologists study only bacteria) was improved by Koch, are applicable to many easily submerged in the more important bacteria and yeasts - though certainly not abstraction: bacteriologists are those who equally to all - and also to some other use a certain set of experimental approach- fungi, and, to some extent, to certain algae and protozoa [3, p. 127]. es to analyze the living world. For the early members of SAB, all organisms This emphasis on methods (the studied in this way became "honorary" "microscopic horticulture" of Pasteur and bacteria. At least one historian has argued Koch) and the sprawling attempt to be that early bacteriology developed largely inclusive about the targets of study ("many as an applied science and that "beyond bacteria and yeasts ... some fungi ... cer- technique bacteriologists had little in com- tain algae and protozoa") is typical of mon" [4, p. 387]. attempts then and now to define the scope What's in a name? For the first sixty of the field. Segdwick also proposed a def- years, American Society for Microbiology inition: "Bacteriology then is a subdivision was called the Society ofAmerican Bacte- of microbiology and is conveniently riologists. The early name put the empha- defined as the science of the culturable sis on the membership (i.e., the bacteriolo- microorganisms" [3, p. 127]. A quasi-tau- gists) rather than on the discipline (i.e., tology, Segdwick's definition both sub- bacteriology). This emphasis was likewise sumes and equates bacteriology with reflected in the choice of Antony van microbiology. Leeuwenhoek, the Delft lens grinder who first observed "wretched beasties" through his primitive microscope, as the logo for THE PAST IS PROLOGUE the Journal ofBacteriology (Figure la) Sedgwick was merely the first of In a 1903 address to the Laboratory many SAB Presidents and other members Section of the American Public Health to struggle with the definition and circum- Association, another enclave for early bac- scription of bacteriology. Moreover, teriologists, H. L. Russell spoke on the dif- although contemporary microbiologists fuse roots of American bacteriology, not- may have trouble comparing bacteria to ing that its practitioners has been recruited bees, or Petri dishes to hives, his apicul- from "widely different preparatory fields," ture-bacteriology analogy had merit. Early and "had their preliminary training in lines Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? 307

of work which are strikingly remote from ative non-spore forming rods (coliforms); each other" [5, p. 331]. In Europe, Russell however, it was often debased to include went on to say, this work was connected all non-spore forming rods. Because of its with medical faculties, while in North indiscriminate use, Bacterium was eventu- America, bacteriology was taught as part ally declared a rejected generic name by of general biological instruction, with bac- an international nomenclature committee teriologists as likely to work in agriculture [8]. or engineering as in medicine. He drew "Microbe" (whence "microbiology") attention to the fact that much of this never had precise nomenclatural status; diverse work "did not fall within the strict rather, it was coined in France to serve as province of the bacteriologist;" and stated a general term. During the late 1800s, further: "the French idea is rapidly gaining there was substantial debate as to whether ground, and that our science would be microscopic organisms belonged to the more correctly denominated if it was plant or the animal kingdoms. A compro- called microbiology.. ." [5, p. 334]. mise was offered: It was at the Paris Academy of the Sci- SOME ETYMOLOGY ences, on the 11th of March, 1878, that Sedillot took part in one of the probably Russell's allusion to a "French idea" interminable discussions between the speaks to a nationalistic element in the advocates of the Microzoaria and those of bacteriology/microbiology choice of the Microphyta and he suggested ... the nomenclature. The terms bacterium and word microbe, to which it appeared to him that every one could give their assent. bacteria had been used in two ways by ... In fact, the word microbe, which only nineteenth century German biologists. designates a small living being, decides Derived from the Greek, bacterium nothing as to the animal or vegetable denotes a short rod or stick. In the mor- nature of the beings in question.... It has phology-based early classification been in common use in France for the last schemes, Bacterium was the genus name four or five years, and may now be regard- for rod-shaped microscopic organisms [6]. ed as definitively adopted in the French language. The word has not yet been fully By 1872, Ferdinand Cohn was using the introduced into the English and German term to refer collectively to "the smallest languages. In order to indicate the organ- and at the same time the simplest and low- isms which produce diseases, they make est of all living forms" [7, p. 7]. Robert use of the word Bacteria, which is only the Buchanan later summarized Cohn's name of one of the peculiar species nomenclatural perspective as follows: assigned to this group ... In this case, the name is generalized and applied to an He defined bacteria as having cells free entire group [9, pp. 4-5]. from chlorophyll, spherical, oblong or cylindric, straight or bent, multiplying Sedillot's coinage was based on the exclusively by fission and either isolated or Greek terms for "small" and "life;" how- vegetating in cell families. Four tribes ever, it has been pointed out that "microbi- [Sphaerobacteria, Microbacteria, Desmo- ology" is etymologically suspect in sever- bacteria, and Spirobacteria] with a total of al ways. The Oxford English Dictionary six genera were recognized [6, p. 22]. notes that the Greek f3ioc is here, as in As a discipline, then, early bacteriolo- modern scientific formations generally, gy was the study of these smallest and used in an incorrect sense: the Greek sense simplest living forms. As bacterial taxono- of uiXpop3oac would be "short lived." my developed, Bacterium as a generic epi- Cowan also finds fault with the term and thet came to refer to a group of Gram-neg- defines microbiology, -ist as: 308 Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology?

An unfortunate name for the study of (and The minute organisms which are common- those who study) microbes. Microbiology ly called "bacteria" are also known popu- means little biology and little biologist is larly under other designations e.g., an appellation that few bacteriologists "microbes," "micro-organisms," "micro- would appreciate, however much algolo- phytes," "bacilli," "micrococci." All these gists, mycologists and molecular biologists terms, including the usual one of bacteria, may like the term [10, p. 162]. are unsatisfactory; for "bacterium," "bacil- lus," and "micrococcus" have narrow technical meanings, and the other terms are too SCIENTIFIC SYNECHDOCHE AND vague to be scientific. The most satisfacto- SEMANTICS ry designation is that proposed by Naegeli SHIFTING in 1857, namely "schizomycetes," and it is by this term that they are usually known Synecdoche is a figure of speech in among botanists; the less exact term, how- which the part is named, but the whole is ever, is also used and is retained in this understood (e.g., "wheels" for car, article since the science is commonly "strings" for violins, cellos, and the like). known as "bacteriolog." [10, p. 156]. The founders of SAB had identified them- The Encyclopedia evaded the issue by selves as "bacteriologists," a distinctive suggesting "schizomycetes" as a better new category of biologist, and inadvertent- term than "bacteria," but refrained from ly reinforced a scientific synecdoche. The completing the syllogism and re-naming reasons for the choice of "bacteriologists" the discipline "schizomycetology." Writ- over "microbiologists" for the name of the ing the same year, C. E. Marshall justified young society, or whether in fact it was a the adoption of "microbiology" for the conscious decision at all, will likely never title of his textbook by emphasizing the be known. Certainly the German and taxonomic diversity of the organisms stud- French derivation of the words may have ied by a bacteriological set of methods reflected some nationalistic biases in the ("technic"): years after the Franco-Prussian War. If so, ... the branch of science commonly rec- it is worth noting that most American bac- ognized as "Bacteriology" has for many teriologists who took European training years included, besides the bacterial forms, went to Germany, not France. Whatever those microorganisms yielding to the same the explanation, from the outset, many laboratory methods of study and investiga- authorities were uncomfortable with "bac- tions. This is a policy or purpose instituted teriology" as the name of the new disci- by Pasteur. It is also the result of investigations and added knowledge, more definite pline, and this discomfort was addressed arrangements of available facts, and the in several of their early writings. Interpre- highly specialized training required for the tations tended to fall into two categories: work.... In the light of such circum- those who automatically assumed that stances, it appears more pertinent to desig- bacteriology was defined by the object of nate this text-book as "Microbiology" its study (i.e., the taxonomic category ... Primarily the technic of the microbiol- called bacteria), and those who recognized ogist together with, in part, the economic bearing of the subject seems to be the that bacteriologists were studying a determinant factor of limitation [11, pp. hodge-podge of microscopic life forms vii, 9]. and, therefore, defined bacteriology by its experimental techniques. The authors of Similarly, Robert Buchanan, writing the entry in the 11th Edition of the Ency- with his wife Estelle, accounted for the clopedia Britannica fell into the first cate- synechdochal usage of bacteriology by gory. placing emphasis on methods: Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? 309

Bacteriology may be defined as that branch proposed that SAB should become the of science which treats of the forms, func- tions and activities of bacteria. The lines of Society of American Microbiologists and demarcation between the bacteria and the that the flagship journal, the Journal of yeasts and molds on the one hand, and cer- Bacteriology, should become the Journal tain of the protozoa on the other, are very of Microbiology. The proposed changes poorly marked. Furthermore, these latter were voted down by the Society's govern- groups are studied most readily by the ing Council in 1959 during the meeting in methods that have been developed in the St. Louis, Missouri [16]; however, the bacteriological laboratory. The meaning of the term Bacteriology has, therefore, grad- naming issue festered and in 1960, SAB ually broadened until now it is generally became ASM, the American Society for understood to include a consideration of Microbiology. Both the flagship monthly the true bacteria, the yeasts, the molds, and Journal of Bacteriology, founded in 1916, certain of the protozoa. The word Microbi- and the long established quarterly review ology is sometimes used in the same sense journal, Bacteriological Reviews, founded and possibly may supplant Bacteriology as in 1937, retained their names. At the 75th a more general and appropriate term [12, p. 1]. Jubilee, Bacteriological Reviews was described as "devoted to the publication of Robert Buchanan had an unusual gift reviews and monographs dealing with the for nomenclatural issues and was a leading broadest possible aspects of microbiolo- force in the SAB committee that eventual- gy" [17, p. 3]. Nevertheless, the continu- ly brought a measure of stability to the dif- ing semantic contradiction irked many sci- ficult topic of bacterial taxonomy. When, entists of the time. Bacteriological in 1920, this SAB Committee issued its Reviews became Microbiological Reviews final report on bacterial classification [13], in 1977; a leading advocate for change much of the nomenclature it included was was S. Bartnicki-Garcia, a fungal physiol- based on a series of ten papers Buchanan ogist anxious to highlight the large number had published between 1916 and 1918 [see of non-bacterial topics reviewed in the 14 for exact citations]. SAB was also journal. More recently, the editors of active in the support of Bergey's Manual Microbiological Reviews felt their name -[15], a reference guide ultimately adopted might again be "too restricted," and in internationally for the classification of 1997, the journal changed its name to bacteria. A review of these massive taxo- Microbiology and Molecular Biology nomic efforts is beyond the scope of this Reviews, reflecting the fact that "molecu- essay; it suffices to say that as the compre- lar biology had become an indispensable hension of bacterial taxonomy became tool to studies on microorganisms, as more exact, and the vast differences microorganisms had long been to the among viruses, prokaryotes, and eukary- development of molecular biology" [18, p. otes became more apparent, the intellectu- 264]. al justification for calling all microbiolo- The images by which the Society has gists "bacteriologists" became more diffi- represented itself offer an interesting per- cult to sustain. Simultaneously, as times spective on its identity. Beginning in 1916 changed, SAB membership grew. The with the appearance of Journal ofBacteri- increased numbers of scientists who stud- ology, Society publications used line ied viruses, molds, antibiotics, immunolo- drawings of Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek as gy, and other non-bacteriological topics a colophon (Figure la). That this solitary created mounting dissatisfaction with the Dutch draper was somehow representative Society's name. In 1958, at the Annual of a Society ofAmerican Bacteriologists is Meeting held in Chicago, Illinois, it was due, of course, to the fact that he was the 310 Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? first to observe and describe bacteria. In molecular biology ever since. In fact, it is addition, his renown as a microscopist not an exaggeration to say that the revolu- associated him with the techniques for tion in molecular methodologies and studying the smallest living things. In genetic engineering was almost entirely preparation for its 75th anniversary cele- developed by scientists who either called bration in 1974, the Society commissioned themselves microbiologists, or by scien- a new logo (Figure lb), with a specific and tists who called themselves something else encompassing emphasis on its objects of but who worked with microbes. study: bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, and Nowadays, the distinctions between viruses. Also included were representa- microbiology and the other rubrics biolo- tions of the molecular structure of an gists use to describe themselves have immunoglobulin; the chemical skeleton of blurred even more. The methods of micro- para-aminobenzoic acid; the chemical biology have been so widely adopted structure of 6-aminopenicillanic acid; and across the biological sciences, especially the double helix structure of nucleic acid. by those who call themselves "molecular When the Society wanted a new logo in biologists," that some people fear that association with its Centennial in 1999, it microbiology itself is in danger of losing was clear that something cleaner and sim- its identity. Contemporary biologists regu- pler was desirable, if only from a market- larly model the mammalian cell as a ing, public relations point of view. After "microbe" and study microbial colonies as much discussion, a design featuring a styl- "multicellular organisms." ized light microscope (Figure lc) was cho- The study of microscopic organisms sen, providing a clear, albeit classical, is thriving, as are the experimental tech- association in the logo between the ASM niques developed by microbiologists. and the methods, rather than the objects of Arguably the most flourishing of the pro- study, of microbiology. fessional societies in biology, SAB/ASM and the discipline it represents, have retained their vigor for over a century. The POSTMODERN MICROBIOLOGY history of the Society demonstrates a suc- Early bacteriologists laid the intellec- cessful effort to maintain a "big tent" def- tual foundation for microbiology as we inition of the science. Microbiology is of know it today. From the beginning, bacte- fundamental importance to all the biologi- riologists felt they were different from cal sciences. As a professional organiza- other biologists. Since morphology and tion, ASM/SAB both echoes and establish- direct observation played a secondary role es scientific priorities. The study of in bacteriological studies, early bacteriolo- microbes continues to play a fundamental gists were pioneers of experimental biolo- role in the study of life. In Joshua Leder- gy. Since the organisms they studied were berg's felicitous phraseology in the Intro- well suited for the study of fundamental duction to the Encyclopedia ofMicrobiol- biological processes in physiology, enzy- ogy, microbes are "the canonical sub- mology, and genetics, microbiologists strates for many investigations on genes, were major players in the development of enzymes, and metabolic pathways" [19 p. modern biology. The "one-gene, one- vii]. The practices of microbiologists have enzyme" hypothesis was based on become the norm for much of biotechnol- research conducted using a mold; DNA ogy and molecular biology. Human hor- was proven to be the transforming princi- mones are now manufactured in microbial ple using bacteria-based experiments. "factories;" cell biologists routinely Microbiology has been at the center of manipulate tissue cultures from multicel- Bennett and Karr: Bacteriology or microbiology? 311

Health Association. Columbus, Ohio: Fred lular plants and animals as if they were J. Heer; 1904, pp. 329-337. microbial colonies; the human genome is 6. Buchanan, R. E. General Systematic Bact- being deciphered with yeast artificial chro- eriology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, mosomes as a major technical tool. There 1925. 7. Cohn, Ferdinand (1872). Bacteria: The are so many branches of biology into Smallest of Living Organisms. Translated which microbiology is now ramifying that by Charles S. Dolley. Rochester, N.Y.: it is possible that ASM's membership may Frank D. Phinney; 1881. follow the lead of its quarterly journal and 8. Cowan, S.T. A Dictionary ofMicrobial Tax- onomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University someday become The American Society Press; 1978. for Molecular Biology and Microbiology. 9. Trouessart, E.L. Microbes, Ferments and Whether or not that should happen, the Moulds. International Scientific Series, Vol. ASM's current mission statement attempts 57. New York: D. Appleton; 1892. 10. Ward, H.M. and Blackman, V. H. Bacteriol- to maintain the Society's "big tent" identi- ogy. In: Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edi- ty by speaking of "advancing the microbi- tion, Vol. III. Cambridge, England: Cam- ological sciences." Under this banner the bridge University Press, 1910. members of ASM at 11. Marshall, C.E. Microbiology for Agricul- continue to be the tural and Domestic Science Students. forefront of the scientific study of life, and Philadelphia: P. Blakiston & Son Co.; to make crucial contributions to both fun- 1911. damental and applied biology. 12. Buchanan, R.E. and Buchanan, E. House- hold Bacteriology for Students in Domestic ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors wish Science. New York: MacMillan Co., 1913. to thank Joshua Lederberg and E. M. Fosterfor 13. Winslow, C.E., Broadhurst, J, Buchanan, R. their valuable perspective on some ofthe issues E., Krumwiede, C., Rogers, L.A., and addressed in this paper Smith, G.H. The families and genera of bacteria. Final report of the Committee of the Society of American Bacteriologists on REFERENCES characterization and classification of bacte- 1. Conn, H.J. Professor Herbert William Conn rial types. J. Bacteriol. 5, 191-229, 1920. and the founding of the society. Bacteriol. 14. Cowan, S. T. Heretical taxonomy for bacte- Rev. 19:275-293, 1948. riologists. J. Gen. Microbiol. 61:145-154, 2. Anonymous. The Society ofAmerican Bac- 1970. teriologists. J. Applied Microscopy 3:661- 15. Bergey's Manual ofDeterminative Bacteri- 662, 1900. ology. Seven editions. Baltimore: Williams 3. Sedgwick, W.T. The origin, scope and sig- and Wilkins; 1923-57. nificance of bacteriology. Science 13:121- 16. [Foster, E. M.] What's in a name? Bacteri- 128, 1900. ological News. 25:3, 1959. 4. Gossell, Patricia Peck. The Emergence of 17. Doetsch, R.N. and Murray, R.G.E. Hist ori- American Bacteriology, 1875-1900. Ph.D. cal notes on Bacteriological Reviews. ASM dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, News 40:2-3, 1974. Baltimore, MD; 1988. 18. Ingraham, J. L. and Murray, R. G. E. A bit 5. Russell, H.L. The development of Ameri- of history. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 63: can Bacteriology. In Public Health Papers 263-264, 1999. and Reports Presented at the Thirty-first 19. Lederberg, J. Encyclopedia of Microbiol- Annual Meeting of the American Public ogy. Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press, 1992.