The tribe Proteeae: its nomenclature and taxonomy

Abstract

T h e s t a t u s of n o m e n c l a t u r a l a n d t a x o n o m i c p r o b l e m s w i t h i q t h e t r i b e P r o t e e a e w a s r e v i e w e d a n d p r o p o s a l s w e r e m a d e r e l at i v e t o t h e g e n e r a a n d s p e c i e s w i t h i n t h e t r i b e. I t w a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e p r o p o s a l s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e J u d i c i a l C o m m i s s i o n of t h e N o m e n c l a t u r e C o m m i t t e e of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f M i c r o b i o l o g i c a l S o c i e t i e s. The purpose of this paper is to p r e s e n t proposals concerning the nomenclature and taxonomy of the b a c t e r i a of the P r o t e u s and Providence groups and to request consideration of the proposals by the Judicial Commission of the Nomenclature Committee of the International As sociation of Microbiological Societies. In a n e a r l i e r communication (1958) the w r i t e r reviewed this subject and expressed the view that the bacteria of the Providence group should not be incorporated into the genus P r o t e u s as i t was constituted by Rustigian and Stuart (1945) and in Bergey's Manual (6th e d. , 1948; 7th e d. , 1957). Although m e m b e r s of the Providence group r e s e m b l e P r o t e u s morganii and P r o t e u s r e t t g e r i in s e v e r a l respects, they differ markedly f r o m P r o t e u s vulgaris and P r o t e u s m i r a b i l i s in fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as failure to liquefy gelatin and failure to produce abundant amounts of hydrogen sulfide. Therefore, the author does not a g r e e with the incorporation of the Providence group into the genus P r o t e u s as P r o t e u s inconstans a s proposed by Shaw and Clarke (1955) and a s was done in the 7th edition of Bergey's Manual (1957). 1955) have pointed out the resemblance and relationship of