Collaborative Centre for Reference and Research on Escherichia (WHO)
STATENS SERUMINSTITUT

AMAGER BOULEVARD 80 », So oiyqé
DK 2300 COPENHAGEN, 8, DENMARK

DIRECTOR: P. vON MAGNUS, m, ob. TELEGRAMS: STATSSERUM

FO/ at TELEPHONE: ASTA 2817
September 4, 1974

Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Stanford Uhiversity

School of Medicine
Department of Genetics
Stanford, California 94305
U.S.A.

Dear Josh,

Thanks for your letter of August 16. Of course the question
has been discussed on many occasions.

One of the reasons for not using binominal epithets for
Escherichia was undoubtedly that one realized that where
Salmonella serotypes run into hundreds (at that time) the
Escherichia serotypes would run into 10 thousands or 100 thousands
of less well-defined serotypes.

In "Salmonella Species” by E. Kelterborn, Dr.°W. Junk Publishers,
Den Haag, 1967, there can be found a short discussion in English on
the naming problem, We include a xerox of the relevant papes. This
book contains a detailed describtion of all serotypes up to 1967
from the historical point of view - alphabetically arranged.

As you know, one has given up naming some of the Salmonellas
and in fact at a certain time in the fifties one had given up the
naming completely. We are not very much involved in the Salmonella
field, but as we see it the naming of Salmonellas with binominal
epithets was natural in the beginning when only few types were known
and then the naming went on by the law of inertia, and perhaps also
because some people thought it was a pleasure to have their place
immortalized this way. When the other groups, Escherichia, Citro-
bacter, Proteus etc. were established everybody understood that
babtizing all these strains might be too confusing. It is of cause
true that a name is easier to remember. On the other hand, we cannot
see that use of names gives more than a sham-precision to the
scientific discussion.

That's all we can say in this matter as far as I can see,

Kindest regards,

we Jue

Ida and Frits Orskov

w 5000.4.71.