Download Letter to the Editor - International Journal of Systematic and

Letter to the Editor
On the Helicobacter Species Isolated from the Pig-Tailed Macaque
In the January 1991issue of the journal, Bronsdon et al. (2)
reported the isolation, from the Macaca nemestrina stomach, of a microaerophilic, spiral, gram-negative organism
that had a distinctive genotype and a unique cellular fatty
acid composition. They proposed that the strain represented
a new Helicobacter species and named it Helicobacter
nernestrinae.
The genus Macaca (L. masc. n.) was created in 1799 by
LacCpede (mentioned by H. Vallois [7]) from the French
name “macaque” (masc. n.). The pigtailed macaque was
named Macaca nemestrinus (7). This species’ name is also
reported by other zoologists (1, 5, 6 ) .
It is a general rule that the species designation to be
adopted is the oldest one. To the best of my knowledge, this
species’ name has not been emended in M. nemestrina.
Thus, the new helical microorganism isolated from the
pigtailed macaque should be named Helicwbacter nernestrini
(ne.me.stri’ni. L. gen. n. nemestrinus) or, better, H . macacaenemestrini (Ma.ca‘cae. L. gen. n. Macaca, of the species
Macaca nemestrinus). In fact, the genus Macaca is composed of a dozen different species. The rhesus monkey, the
most closely related to humans, can be naturally infected by
Helicobacter pylori (4). M . nemestrinus harbors a genotypically different helicobacter (2). Monkeys of different genera
(e.g., the baboon species Papio papio) can be colonized by
spiral organisms resembling H . pylori (3). Thus, helicobacters of various different species most probably have their
ecological niche in the stomachs of other primates.
I do not want to seem conceited, but I think that H .
macacaenemestrini would be an all-encompassing species
designation for the organism isolated from the pigtailed
macaque.
the Editor, because I was the Editor of the IJSB at the time
the manuscript in question was published.
Dr. Figura suggests that the specific epithet of Helicobacter nemestrinae is incorrectly formed. He suggests that the
ending be modified to be correct or that the name be changed
entirely to one that is more fitting.
The rules of bacterial nomenclature specificaly forbid his
second suggestion of changing the name simply because a
new one would be more fitting or descriptive. However, the
rules specifically state that the ending of the specific epithet
can be changed by any author to provide the correct Latin
form.
To determine the proper Latin form of the epithet I
consulted Dr. T. 0. MacAdoo, a Latin scholar who has
provided a great deal of help to many microbiologists who
describe and name new species. His reply illustrates some of
the complexities that may face bacteriologists who wish to
use proper Latin form as required in the Bacteriological
Code of Nomenclature. I hope that publication of Dr.
Figura’s letter, Dr. MacAdoo’s response, and my comments
will encourage others to chose names carefully and according to the recommendations of the code.
W. E. C. Moore
Department of Anaerobic Microbiology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0305
T. 0. MacAdoo’s Reply
In his letter, Dr. Figura contends chiefly that (i) Lackpede
originally gave the name and epithet Macaca (masc.) nemestrinus to this species of macaque and that therefore, under
the rules of priority common to the biologies, this designation must be preserved and that (ii) microbiologists are thus
bound to observe only this original designation in giving a
derivative epithet to a new bacterial taxon. He is, he says,
unaware that there has been an official change in the zoological binomial.
According to the Nomenclator Zoologicus, which has
considerable authority, in 1799 Lacepede first gave the genus
the original Portuguese name Macaco, a masculine noun
itself derived from an African word, and then settled for
Macaca. The gentleman was vastly learned, and it is inconceivable that he did not know that the correct Latinization of
Macaco would be Macacus if the masculine gender was to
be conserved. Obviously, then, he intended the genus to be
feminine, probably because the Latin word for any ape or
monkey, simia, is regularly feminine. The fun started when
he quite correctly added as a specific epithet the obviously
masculine nemestrinus! It is not surprising, therefore, that
several writers (listed in Nomenclator Zoologicus) in 1820
“emended” the genus to Macacus. They presumably had
never read Arnobius, a third century Christian polemicist
who (in Contra Gentiles) poked fun at pagans for inventing a
god for everything imaginable and then naming him for the
thing for which he was responsible. The name nemestrinus
was obviously derived from nemus, a woodland glade. This
word appears only once in extant Latin literature, in the
work of the author mentioned above, but it is clear that
Nemestrinus was a god of the woodland glades. An English
translation might be “His Gladesiness.” What is important
REFERENCES
1. Beddar, F. E. (ed.). 1923. Mammalia, p. 564, MacMillan & Co.,
London.
2. Bronsdon, M. A., C. S. Goodwin, L. I. Sly, T. Chilvers, and F. D.
Schoenknecht. 1991. Helicobacter nemestrinae sp. nov., a spiral
bacterium found in the stomach of a pigtailed macaque (Maraca
nernestrina). Int. J . Syst. Bacteriol. 41:148-153.
3. Curry, A. D., D. M. Jones, and J. Eldridge. 1987. Spiral organisms in the baboon stoma+. Lancet ii:634-635.
4. Euler, A. R., G. E. Zurenko, J. B. Moe, R. G. Ulrich, and Y.
Yagi. 1990. Evaluation of two monkey species (Macaca rrzulatta
and Macaca fascicularis) as possible models for human Nelicobacter pylori disease. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28:2285-2290.
5. Schmarda, L. K. (ed.). 1872. Zoologie, p. 540. Wilhelm Braumiiller, Vienna.
6. Scortecci, G. (ed.). 1953. Animali, vol. 1, p. 142. Edizioni Labor,
Milan.
7. Vallois, H. 1955. Ordre des Primates, p. 1854-2207. In P.-P.
Grasse (ed.), Traite de Zoologie, vol. 17. Masson & Co., Paris.
Natale Figura
Istituto di Malattie Infettive
Universitu di Siena
Via P.A. Mattioli, I0
I-53100 Siena
iluly
Editor’s Reply
I have been requested to respond to Dr. Figura’s Letter to
593
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 04:46:12
594
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
INT. J. SYST.BACTERIOL.
is that the word is a noun, not an adjective; it is placed in
apposition [bacteriologists see International Code of Nornenclatiire of Bacteria Rule 12c(2) for an explanation] with
the genus and does not have to agree in gender. (For anyone
who has forgotten secondary school grammar, apposition is
the placement of two nouns side by side so that the second
clarifies the first, as in “John Jones, the barber, was there.”
Here, “the barber” is in apposition with “John Jones”; it
keeps us from confusing him with those other Joneses-the
butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker.) Dr. Figura
is, therefore, perfectly correct in thinking that the original
binomial Macaca nernestrinus should stand, but he is wrong
in thinking that Macaca was intended to be masculine. What
ithe genus is now is somewhat difficult to establish.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., and the current
edition of the Oxford English Dictionary both give the genus
(3sMacacus. Webster’s New International Dictionary states
that Macacus and Macaca are synonymous, in both the
second and third editions. In Donald G. Lindburg’s 1980
symposium on the macaques, Jack Fooden of the Field
Museum of Natural History, dealing specifically with the
classification of macaques, gives only Macaca nemestrinn
for this species. Presumably there is still some confusion
about the matter.
But that is a problem for zoologists. What this should be to
bacteriologists is a warning never to use an appositional
epithet when it is predictable that it will be mistaken for an
adjective of the wrong gender! Not everyone has the vast
learning of a LacCpede! (The best summaries of this man’s
life and work are to be found in two encyclopedias, the
Britannica, 11th ed., and the Italiana. The latter is somewhat fuller.)
Since nemestrina is in accepted usage by reputable zoologists and lexicographers, I find no merit in Dr. Figura’s
desire to see Helicobacter nemestrinae converted to H .
nemestrini. Nor can I endorse his proposal to condense both
genus and species of the subject macaque into one word for
a new epithet. The epithet is quite long enough now!
T. 0. MacAdoo
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0225
Downloaded from www.microbiologyresearch.org by
IP: 88.99.165.207
On: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 04:46:12