60 The Philippine Journal of Science 1919 
ically, removing those species that are now recognized to belong 
to the fungi. 
Engler, in his Syllabus, (21) included Harz’s organism in the 
genus Sphaerotilus as “Sph. (Actinomyces) bovis,” thus adding 
a new name to the list of synonyms. He had not revised this 
grouping in the fifth (1907) edition. 
Discomyces Rivolta was shown to be the correct designation 
for the genus by Blanchard(9) who, stimulated by Levy’s and 
Berestnew’s articles, reviewed the question of nomenclature. in 
adopting this term he had changed his earlier opinion, for he ~ 
had previously(8) employed Nocardia. His argument is based 
on accepted principles and should carry conviction. Previous 
to this the term had been practically ignored. It is true that 
Sheube(57) cites Nocard and then Blanchard as having advo- 
cated this term for Discomyces (Streptothrix) indica, but we 
have been unable to find any publication by Nocard in which 
it is used; on the other hand, in the third (1903) edition of 
Nocard and le Clainche’s Maladies Microbiennes des Ani- 
maux,(48) Actinomyces is used in connection with actinomy- 
cosis and Streptothrix with “farcin du boeuf.” Gedoelst(25) 
evidently accepted Blanchard’s decision, for he designated the 
genus Discomyces Rivolta 1878, and the organism of actinomy- 
cosis Discomyces bovis (Harz 1877) Rivolta 1878. Stitt(59) is 
apparently the only American authority who has adopted this 
name. Brumpt(12) in a discussion of the mycetomas, used 
Discomyces and still subscribes to it, for in discussing organisms 
presented in 1913 by Pinoy(51) to the Société de Pathologie 
exotique (Paris) as Nocardia he used the former rather than the 
latter term. Manson,(41) in subscribing to Brumpt’s classifica- 
tion of the mycetomas, also used the same nomenclature. Cas- 
tellani and Chalmers(13) employed Discomyces in 1910, although 
they later discarded it. 
A new name was introduced by Ligniéres and Spitz, (35) who 
called a subtype of this group Actinobacillus. In a later arti- 
cle(36) they acknowledged the strict propriety of Blanchard’s 
argument in regard to the application of Discomyces to the 
general group, although they continued to use Streptothriz. 
During this period certain German authors had adopted Acti- 
nomyces and Streptothriz as separate genera. This is exempli- 
fied by Petrusky’s(50) classification in which they are placed in 
a family which he terms Trichomycetes. Wright(62) believed 
that Actinomyces should be retained for the organism of actino- 
mycosis, which he emphatically maintained should be differ- 
entiated generically from other organisms of the group. He 
