The classification of viruses.
C. Andrewes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-12-2-358
1955-04-01
Journal of General Microbiology
Abstract:Recent discussions have centred rather on the nomenclature than on the classification of viruses. This is due in no small part to the reaction to Dr Holmes’s ‘ Virus Supplement ’ in Bergey’s Manual. His names were interesting, challenging ones which provoked controversy; and since they were beginning, if only in a small way, to creep into the literature it was necessary for virologists generally to decide whether to bless or to curse: neutrality was impossible. Holmes’s classification of animal viruses, on the other hand, seemed to animal virologists to bear hardly any relation to the facts of life. At this point I shall apologize to our distinguished visitor for being repeatedly very critical of his writings. He and I have argued in public before and he knows, I hope, that however rude I may be, it is with the best will in the world. If he knows his Gilbert and Sullivan he will recall what King Hildebrand said to King Gama in Princess Ida: ‘We will hang you, never fear, most politely, most politely.’ Dr Holmes’s is the credit for stimulating great interest in virus taxonomy and nomenclature : his action has also been invaluable-and here I am still trying to be polite-as a glaring example of how not to classify viruses. His family and generic divisions, at any rate amongst animal viruses, are based mainly on the symptoms and pathological lesions produced in infected hosts-barely at all on the properties of the viruses themselves. Now signs and symptoms, together with host and tissue specificity, are amongst the most labile properties of viruses, most easily modified experimentally. Further, very similar symptoms and lesions may be caused by viruses widely differing in all their fundamental properties. Thus Holmes places in one genus, Molitor, the utterly dissimilar viruses of warts, fowl-tumours and myxomatosis, having in common the one property of causing striking cell proliferation. You may have gathered that I do not care for Dr Holmes’s classification. I have just seen a copy of that of Zhdanov, which is very similar to Holmes’s and is, I feel sure, based on it, as it repeats most of Holmes’s most glaring errors and adds new ones of its own. Thus it not only includes the Rous sarcoma, warts and myxoma in one genus (Tumefaciens) but throws in, for good measure, the Bittner milk factor, an epithelioma of fish, and molluscum contagiosum. Like Holmes, Zhdanov widely separates dog distemper from so-called ferret distemper, Newcastle disease from fowl plague and cat distemper from cat leucopenia. Nearly all Holmes’s names have been changed, presumably because Zhdanov was worried by the absence of an adequately confused synonymy. Viruses are labile, variable agents and we need to rely on characters which are as stable as possible. At Rio de Janeiro in 1950 the Virus Subcommittee