xiv,1 Merrill and Wade: The Validity of Discomyces 65 
tionably a valid, recognized genus, and Streptothriz Cohn must 
fall. 
Actinomyces was used by Harz with but a very limited 
knowledge of the organism to which he applied it, evidently 
without suspecting its possible relationship to Cohn’s Strepto- 
thrix foersteri and probably without being aware of Meyen’s 
use of the name. Whether or not this newer application is 
valid, as most writers seem at least tacitly to agree, depends 
on the validity of its preémption by Meyen. That it is valid 
is evident from the following transcription from the original 
publication : 
Actinomyce 
Sporidochia, cellulis hyalinis simplicibus enormiter et multipliciter 
ramificantibus sporis impletis, substantiae uniformi gelatinosa hyalina 
induta. 
Actinomyce Horkelii 
R. forma irregulari sphaeroidea, gelatinosa duritie ad basin augente 
usque ad consistentiam cartilaginosam, colore hyalino-subcoeruleo. Hab. 
in pinguedine et pleuris animalium aquae submersis, autumno prope 
Coloniam Agrippinam. 
Zum Schlusse wage ich noch, etwas itiber das beginnende Wachsthum 
dieses Pilzes zu sagen. Der Pilz ist nicht eine Krankheitsform eines 
Organismus, sondern er ist ein eigener Organismus, ein eigenes Leben 
unabhangig von seinem Mutterboden, aber dennoch von demselben be- 
schrankt. 
It is to be noted that Meyen used the name Actinomyce. 
While by some the use of this form might conceivably be argued 
not to invalidate Actinomyces, the derivation of the two is identi- 
cal, and the argument cannot hold. Actinomyce horkelii Meyen 
is now an organism of uncertain status. Although it was 
described by Meyen as a fungus, the description apparently ap- 
plies to one of the colonial Cyanophycee. The genus is not 
recognized in either mycological or algological literature. How- 
ever, the description of both the genus and the species is indis- 
putably valid, and in the present connection the question of its 
identity is unimportant. In being validly published, it invali- 
dates the further use of the same name for another group of 
organisms in the plant kingdom. 
From the foregoing it is evident that by the accepted principles 
of botanical nomenclature both of these names are preoccupied. 
To deny on this ground either of them and yet accept the other, 
as has been done, is inconsistent. Recommendation of “strepto- 
tricosis” by a committee of the Pathological Society of London 
cannot be accepted as competent to validate Streptothriz, nor 
ean the adoption by the Botanical Section of the First Inter- 
national Congress of Pathology validate Nocardia. It is true 
