Summary auto-generated
This study examines the taxonomic status of Corynebacterium striatum, a bacterium with a complex nomenclatural history dating back to 1889. The authors compared four reference strains of C. striatum from culture collections (ATCC 6940, ATCC 43735, ATCC 43751, and NCTC 764) against the original descriptions published by vonBesser (1889), Morse (1912), and Munch-Petersen (1954). They found significant discrepancies: none of the current reference strains matched any of the original descriptions, and the reference strains actually appear more closely related to Corynebacterium xerosis than to the historically described C. striatum variants. The CDC identification scheme and Bergey's Manual descriptions also conflict substantially. The authors conclude that C. striatum likely qualifies as a nomen dubium—a name whose original description cannot be reliably matched to deposited strains. They propose either formal rejection of the name or, preferably, a careful search for strains labeled with earlier names (Bacillus striatus, B. flavidus, or C. flavidum) that actually match the original descriptions, which could be established as a neotype strain.
Key findings
- None of the four available C. striatum reference strains conform to any of the three original descriptions from vonBesser, Morse, or Munch-Petersen
- Current C. striatum reference strains are more closely related to C. xerosis than to organisms described in original publications
- Major disagreements exist between Bergey's Manual and CDC identification schemes for C. striatum, differing in 4 of 13 biochemical tests
- The species likely qualifies as nomen dubium and may require rejection or establishment of a neotype strain from original source material
This summary was generated automatically from the article PDF and is not part of the original publication. Refer to the PDF for the authoritative text.
Abstract
The description of Corynebacterium striatum(Chester 1901) Eberson 1918ALin Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology has many inconsistencies with the identification scheme from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We have studied the four C. striatum reference strains available from the American Type Culture Collection and the National Collection of Type Cultures and found that they fit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention description of this species. However, it appears that the wrong strains were deposited for this species, because none of the reference strains fits the descriptions in the original publications. This is a substantial case for declaring it a nomen dubium, but the name could be rescued if a careful search reveals a strain that was used in making the original description. It is hoped that some readers may have the missing strains labeled with the early names Bacillus striatus, Bacillus flavidus, or Corynebacterium flavidum.