Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SUMMARY: Four morphologically different types of the bifid bacteria can be distinguished, and a classification of these bacteria on morphological basis agrees rather well with earlier groupings based on biochemical and serological characteristics. Morphological features may thus have a taxonomic value as regards the bifid bacteria. A comparison of the morphological characteristics of the bifid bacteria with those of representatives of the genera Corynebacterium, Actinomyces, Propioni- bacterium, Butyribacterium and Lactobacillus revealed that three out of four morphological subtypes showed closest resemblance to the genus Butyribacterium, whereas the fourth subtype (the one referred to in the literature as Lactobaci llus bifidus var. pennsylvanicus) may be related to Actinomyces. Thus, the designation Lactobacillus bifidus for these bifid bacteria seems clearly wrong.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sundman et al. (1959) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: