described 69.3% (46.1% + 23.2%) of the variation in the CFA matrix between them and three clusters were apparent. Cluster 4A consisted of three reference strains Leuconostoc luctis (DSM 202021, Leuconostoc citreum (DSM 20188) and Lactobacih confusus (DSM 20196). Cluster 4B consisted of nine isolates all of which were phenotypically Leuconostoc mesenteroides strains (Garvie, 1986X Cluster 4C consisted of all other reference strains and isolates included in this analysis. The close relationship between all Leuconostoc strains examined in this study, except Leuconostoc citreum (DSM 201881, Leuconostoc lactis (DSM 20202) and Lactobucillus confusu.s (DSM 201961, was confirmed from Fig. 2. In addition, cluster 4B indicated the ability of CFA analysis to differentiate strains of Leuconostoc mesenteroides associated with the spoiled meat environment from otherLeuconostoc species. The fact that Leuconostoc mesenteroides (DSM 20343) was not included in this cluster, however, indicated that strains of this species from other environments may differ on the basis of CFA content. Care should thus be taken when comparing the CFAs of strains from diverse environments. Since all remaining strains in this projection clustered together (4C) differentiation of any further Leuconostoc groups was not possible on the basis of CFA content.