What question did this study set out to answer?

To clarify the taxonomic status and identification challenges of Mima-Herellea bacteria.

December 7, 1963JAMA106 citations

The Human Skin as a Source of Mima-Herellea Infections

DTDavid TaplinUniversity of Miami GRGerbert RebellUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill NZNardo ZaiasMiami Dermatology and Laser Institute

Key Points

To clarify the taxonomic status and identification challenges of Mima-Herellea bacteria.
Review of literature on Mima-Herellea group from 1942 to present.
Analysis of synonyms and confusing classifications in bacterial nomenclature.
Mima-Herellea group remains poorly defined due to diverse synonyms.
Taxonomic ambiguity led to exclusion from major bacteriology references.

Abstract

BACTERIA of theMima-Herelleagroup were not recognized as distinct and remained undescribed until 1942, when De Bord1suggested the nameMimeaefor a new tribe of gram-negative, nonmotile organisms which resembled Neisseria morphologically, but differed in biochemical characteristics. He named the two new organismsMima polymorphaandHerellea vaginicola. During subsequent years, other authors reported similar organisms but gave them different names so that the situation became extremely confusing. Synonyms for bacteria in this group include "B5W,"2Bacterium anitratum,3Moraxella glucidolytica,4Achromobacter lwoffi,5andAcinetobacter anitratum.6Reviews of the literature are given by Rosebury in 19627and Daly et al in 1962.8 Presumably due to the uncertain taxonomic position of these bacteria, they were not included in the seventh edition ofBergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. This, combined with the confusing variety of synonyms, resulted in failure to identify this group

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper