164 GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 



and that it is a most appropriate designation both because it indicates 

 a most important characteristic of the colonies on artificial media and 

 because it shows relationship to the fungi. Lehmann and Neumann 

 (1896) in the first edition of their Grundriss use the name Oospora, 

 but in later editions they have followed Lachner-Sandoval in the use of 

 Actinomyces. 



Gedoelst (1902) concludes Actinomyces to be invalid, and substitutes 

 for it Rivolta's term, Discomyces. This point of view is also taken by 

 Moore and Wade (1919, p. 55.) 



Wright (1904, p. 349) concludes that the name Actinomyces should be 

 strictly limited to the parasitic forms which produce rays in tissues, 

 and do not form chains of conidia or spores on artificial media. For the 

 forms which do not show the clubbing in tissues and which develop 

 chains of conidia he used the name Nocardia Trevisan as emended by 

 Blanchard (1896, p. 853). Jordan (1910, p. 411) used the same basis of 

 differentiation. The genus Actinomyces has also been recognized by 

 Orla-Jensen (1909, p. 334) and by Schlegel (1913, p. 302). The latter 

 author emphasized the formation of a true branched mycelium, re- 

 production by conidial chains, and by the presence of the rayed form 

 in the body tissues. Petruschky (1913, p. 270) gives a very confused 

 discussion of this nomenclature. He concludes that Actinomyces 

 should be strictly limited to the clubbed or ray forms in tissues, and 

 that others should be termed Streptothrix. Pinoy (1911) introduced 

 the new generic name Cohnistreptothrix for organisms of the type of 

 Cohn's Streptothrix foersteri. In a later article (1913, p. 929) he reviews 

 the use of the various generic names proposed, and concludes that 

 Streptothrix must be reserved for the hyphomycete of Corda, and that 

 Actinomyces is equally untenable. Discomyces he states was not pro- 

 posed originally as a strict generic designation, but as a common name 

 and furthermore that it resembles in form too closely the group name 

 Discomycetes of the Pezizales. He quotes the action of the botanical 

 section of the first International Congress of Comparative Pathology, 

 which decided to adopt the generic name Nocardia of Trevisan. He 

 divides the old genus Actinomyces into two, Nocardia with A^. bovis 

 as the type, and Cohnistreptothrix with C. foersteri and C. Israeli as the 

 best known species. Nocardia includes those forms which are aerobic, 

 grow readily on artificial media and produce arthrospores. Cohni- 

 streptothrix on the other hand, includes those forms which are anaerobic 

 or at least microaerophilic, are relatively more difficult of cultivation 

 and do not produce arthrospores. This author comes to the conclusion 



