Recent studies of the olive-tubercle organism / by Erwin F. Smith.

  • Erwin Frink Smith
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Recent studies of the olive-tubercle organism / by Erwin F. Smith. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    11/24 (page 31)
    true parasite; Bacillus oleae (i (Schifl-Giorgini), a nonpathogenic organism; and Bacillus oleae y, which in Berlese’s cultures is Asco- hactenum luteum, a nonpathogenic, liquefying peritrichiate form, and in Savastano’s cultures is .4. hUeum,mixed with Smith’s organism, an assumption believed to be required by the fact that Savastano describes Ids organism as sometimes liquefying gelatin and as 3’ellow on some media and yet obtained tubercles on making inoculations. Such being the situation, by what name shall the olive-tubercle organism be knowm? The earliest name, Arcangeli’s, is practically a nomen nudum, since the description accompanying it does not presuppose patho- genicity nor enable anyone to determine what organism was intended. Arcangeli’s entire description is as follows: But I constantly found between the irregular cavities placed more or less deeply (whose walls were oftentimes more or less chestnut colored and changed) colonies of a bacterial form like Bacterium termo, which I shall call Bacterium oleae, together with mycelial filaments, possibly of a Cladosporium, and spores ol fungi. Savastano was the first man to isolate bacteria from the olive tubercle and to secure infections. His name is the next earliest, but it is a trinonual, and a part of his description is drawn from nuxed cultures. The organism does not liqueh* gelatin and is not yellow. TreAdsan’s names are inadmissible because he merely copied earlier vague statements and no one can tell from his descriptions what or- ganism was intended. This is shown ailmirably by the veiy diverse interpretations which have followed, e. g., Berlese’s and Schiff’s. Indeed, the subject is in such confusion that in recent years no less than four distinct organisms have been considered to be Bacillus oleae by different writers. . After carefid consideration, to avoid further confusion, the writer has decided to give an entirely new name to the organism isolated by himself, and, in order that Savastano may not fail of due honor, he has decided upon the name Bacteriuirt^Savastanoi, with the follow- ing characterization: DESCRIPTION OF THE OLIVE-TUBERCLE ORGANISM. Bacienum Savastanoi (novL nom., nov. descript.) Synonym (]>ro jiarte): Bacillus oleae tuberculosis Savastano. Names of iloubtful import, to be rejected: Bacterium oleae Arc.; Bacillus Prillieuxianus Trev.; Bacillus oleae (Arc.) Trev. Latin diagnosis.—Baculis cylindricis apicibus rotundatis, longitu- dine variantibus, solitariis vel in filamentis brevibus dispositis; baculis unis saepe 1.2-.3 X 0.4-O.S y; se moventibus, aerol)iis, asporis. 131-IV