This article is a critical review of two bacteriological reference works: Skerman's Guide to bacterial taxonomy covering 162 genera, and Elek's monograph on Staphylococcus pyogenes. Skerman's work is praised for its comprehensive approach, bridging cultivation methods for saprophytic, parasitic, and autotrophic bacteria, with excellent illustrations and a thought-provoking classification system organizing genera into thirty-two groups. However, the review identifies significant deficiencies in Elek's monograph, particularly regarding bacterial nomenclature and taxonomy. While Elek provides encyclopedic coverage of staphylococcal morphology, serology, phage typing, virulence, and clinical aspects with thorough literature review, he mishandles the naming controversy for the coagulase-positive species. The reviewer criticizes Elek's failure to apply international nomenclatural rules and the type concept recognized across biology. Specifically, Elek advocates for Staphylococcus pyogenes based on priority to Ogston (1880-1883), but the reviewer demonstrates Ogston never formally proposed this binomial name. The review emphasizes the importance of following internationally agreed bacteriological nomenclature codes, contrasting the inadequate taxonomic treatment with Elek's otherwise competent discussion of other staphylococcal characteristics.

Key findings

• Skerman's Guide successfully bridges cultivation methods for saprophytic, parasitic, and autotrophic bacteria with original illustrations and a revised classification system.
• Elek's monograph provides encyclopedic coverage of Staphylococcus pyogenes characteristics but fails to adequately address taxonomy and nomenclature according to international standards.
• Elek incorrectly attributes the binomial name Staphylococcus pyogenes to Ogston, despite Ogston never having proposed this formal name in his published works.
• The review emphasizes that international bacteriological nomenclature rules, approved by multiple countries and microbiological congresses, should supersede historical arguments about species naming.
• Medical bacteriology lacks adequate understanding of the type concept and taxonomic principles universally recognized in botanical and zoological classification.