INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY VOL. 21, No. 2 April 1971, pp. 197-206 Printed in U.S.A. Copyright 0 1971 International Association of Microbiological Societies Nomenclature of Bacteria with Special Reference to the Order Actinomycetales' THOMAS G. PRIDHAM Northern Regional Research Laboratory,z Peoria, Illinois 61604 The number of names for streptomycetes that is in the scientific literature now is exceeded only by those for organisms placed in the genus Bacillus Cohn 1872. The genus Streptomyces Waksman and Henrici 1943 may well rank in first place if names in the patent and quasiscientific literature are included. The overwhelming number of names and the lack of a precise definition of a particular species or subspecies, of type or neotype strains, and of certain essential details have brought about problems in assessing the status of many names. The major problems encountered in a 2-year study are discussed, and a simple format is suggested, use of which may help to clarify future nomenclature. Twelve years ago, I presented (29) before ture of Bacteria (20); type strains, where these the First Latin-American Congress for Micro- can be located and obtained, are being as- biology held at Mexico, D.F., some suggestions sembled and recharacterized (35 -38) through on establishing a logical order in streptomycete the International Streptomyces Project, and a classification. minumum set of substrata and tests have been (i) Compilation and evaluation of available recommended for description of A ctino- literature on nomenclature and characterization mycetales in patents (1 1, 12). of streptomycetes. One item upon which insufficient attention (ii) Decision on the proper code of nomen- has been focused is nomenclature. For the past clature to follow and on a common language to several years I have been engaged in a practical describe new taxa. application of the International Code of (iii) Agreement on generic names to be used. Nomenclature of Bacteria (hereinafter referred (iv) Check of type strains and their recharac- to as the Code). My results have been informa- t erization by contemporary met hods. tive, yet disappointing, frustrating, and men- (v) Assignment of numbers to each im- tally exhausting. My experience is an indict- portant named or unnamed strain reported in ment against departments of bacteriology, the literature. microbiology, and biology the world over. (vi) Agreement on designation of a minimum Although I speak primarily to actinomycetolo- set of substrata and tests for characterization of gists, unquestionably my remarks apply to strains. other subdisciplines within microbiology. Too (vii) Determination of ranges of variation many of us either do not know about the Code, within particular taxa, if possible. do not understand it, or simply choose to (viii) Provision for adequate preservation of ignore it. On the other hand, those concerned cultures of type strains. with the development of the Code may not In the ensuing years, considerable advance- have fully realized the impact of applied micro- ment has been made on some of these sug- biology or of the teamwork approach in solving gestions. Actinomycetologists have agreed ( 1) microbiological problems. Applied micro- on using the International Code of Nomencla- biology and the research team present many new problems to the nomenclature of micro- Presented at a round table on Nomenclature of organisms, particularly the A ctinomycetales Actinornycetales at the 10th International Congress and other taxa of industrial-economic interest. I for Microbiology, Mexico, D.F., 9-1 5 August 1970. daresay that a majority of the new taxa which This is a laboratory of the Northern Marketing and Nutrition Research Division, Agricultural Re- confront us now have come from applied search Service, US. Department of Agriculture. microbiology. Therefore its stake in nomencla- 197 198 PRIDHAM INT. J. SYST. BACTERIOL. ture is high. I am particularly concerned be- Only by taking certain liberties can one arrive cause classification and nomenclature seem to at any reasonably accurate contemporary pic- move along separate pathways. Taxonomists ture of the Order as it is known from a should apply the correct names to their taxa. taxonomic viewpoint. The taxonomic informa- Hence, the relationship between the two discip- tion is there, but there are problems associated lines should be closer. with communicating this information through As shown in Table 1, the number of names nomenclature. of streptomycetes in the scientific literature Perhaps we have lost sight of the principal now is exceeded only by the number of names reason for naming a microorganism, i.e., to of organisms placed in the genera Bacillus Cohn facilitate communication. In virtually every 1872 and Bacterium Ehrenberg. (The name of microbiological operation one ultimate ques- the latter genus has been placed on the list of tion that arises is, “What is the name of the rejected names.) organism?” The accuracy of this determination The genus Streptomyces Waksman and eventually reflects the state of the discipline Henrici 1943, when combined with the genus and its progress. Despite the fundamental dis- Actinomyces Harz 1877, most of which are coveries that have come out of pure taxonomy streptomycetes or streptoverticillia anyway, and despite the excellent chemical work result- may well rank in first place as far as number of ing from studies of secondary metabolites, our named species and subspecies is concerned if means of communicating in terms of the those in the patent and quasiscientific literature microorganisms involved is in a sad state be- are included. The overwhelming number of cause of failures to follow the Code. Or, names, lack of a precise definition of a species perhaps from another viewpoint, the Code may or subspecies, lack of type or neotype strains, be too involved and restrictive. Because of its and lack of essential details associated with complex nature, it may present too many particular names have brought about questions obstacles for practical application. Only in in assessing the status of many names. Principle 8 of the Code do I find reference to My task was a frustrating one complicated an explanation of why microorganisms are initially by translation, the Actinomyces versus named: “. ..to supply a means of referring to Streptomyces, and patent problems. I will taxa.” Savory (34) gives a fuller discussion in discuss some of these and present a simple his interesting little book on nomenclature. Of format that may help to alleviate the situation course, to aid communication any kind of in the future. Unless more attention is paid to system or supplement would suffice, provided the Code, I predict continuing confusion and it is acceptable. Suggestions toward this end much busy work in the years to come, have been made (13, 39), but the binary system especially if one considers the multitude of new supplemented with strain designations still names that might be proposed through applica- appears to be the most acceptable, at least to tion of a typological-nominalistic kind of me, for the Actinomycetales. species concept. The information I have Scientists require that a name be correct gathered suggests that literal interpretation of according to certain rules. However, because of the Code would result in a rather short list of the impact of applied microbiology, we are in a names of organisms belonging to the order position where scientific law and the much Actinomycetales that are scientifically correct. older juridicial law (10) are opposed in certain No. of pages Genus IBa IB-1 IB-2 IB-3 Total Bacillus ............................... 188-112 2 11-112 1-114 203-114 Bacterium (illegal) ....................... 109 1-1/2 12-1/2 314 123-314 Actinomyces-Streptomyces ................ 77 2-112 8 2-112 90 Salmonella ............................ 8 1 0 0 0 81 Pseudomonas .......................... 37-314 2-114 0 0 40 Micrococcus ........................... 36 112 0 0 36-112 Q IB, reference 8; IB-1, reference 15; IB-2, reference 43; IB-3, reference 44. VOL. 21,1971 A CTINOMYCETALES NOMENCLATURE 199 areas, e.g., Rule 11 of the Code, wherein names taxonomic reports on nomenclature. This of bacteria published in patents are not recog- consequence can be fully appreciated only nized as valid. through study of the Code and implementation Of the three initial broad problems I en- of its “Principles, Rules, and Recommenda- countered, that of translation, though difficult, tions.” Resolving taxonomic problems also will is perhaps the simplest to solve. Lack of ultimately clarify some of the nomenclatural adequate services or capabilities for translating problems. a variety of languages leads to a considerable lag The third major problem I encountered or breach in communication simply because too revolves around Rule 11 of the Code and few people are adept in all foreign languages, concerns names of organisms published in taxonomic papers may not have high priority patents. I am fearful that this Rule may have for translation services, and translations are placed nomenclatural specialists in a position expensive. I am beginning to look with jaun- worse than before the Rule was promulgated. I diced eye on the time, effort, and expense of still am not certain as to the reason(s) for its obtaining translations when much of the infor- proposal. In the review of this manuscript, mation turns out to be of little or no real value. three reviewers offered the following as their Only through much perseverance