166 GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 



cepted was Nocardia. The official record of the Congress however contains no 

 reference to this action which is stated to have been taken during the discussion 

 of a paper by Potron (1912). As this action ignores the stronger claims of Ac- 

 tinomyces and Discomyces, and does not appear in the official record, it cannot be 

 regarded as final. 



And further : 



Because of confusion between Streptothrix Corda 1839 and Streptothrix Cohn 

 1875 and the general use of the former term by mycologists, the latter term should 

 be generally disregarded. xVccording to the International Rules of Botanical 

 Nomenclature, the limited use of the term Actinomyce by Meyen in 1828 and 1832 

 is not sufficient to invalidate the generally used Actinomyces Harz 1877 provided 

 the latter is accepted as a genus conservandum by an International Botanical Con- 

 gress. The continued use of the latter term is therefore recommended. The 

 type species of the genus is A. hovis Harz. 



Later they note that both botanical and zoological codes provide for 

 the retention of generic names which differ only by a single letter 

 (International Botanical Code, Chapter III, Article 57). They note 

 further etymological differences between Actinomyce and Actinomyces, 

 (1920, p. 490). 



Although the stem words from which Actinomyce and Actinomyces are derived 

 have identical meaning in the original Greek, " myce " is derived from the less 

 commonly used feminine word, hvkt^, while "myces" comes from the masculine 

 noun, fivKTis. Thus the two generic terms in question ought not to be regarded 

 as homonyms as is done by Merrill and Wade. This view we find has already 

 bean expressed by Giissow (1914) in a paper which we had overlooked, and is 

 confirmed by those authorities with whom we have consulted. This being the 

 case legislative action by an International Congress is unnecessary. Actinomyces 

 Harz is valid without such action and should be retained rather than Discomyces 

 Rivolta. 



The generic name Streptothrix Cohn which has been held by some 

 writers to have priority over Actinomyces is clearly invalid. Corda's 

 genus Streptothrix is well characterized both by description and figure, 

 it has had additional species described, and is generally recognized in 

 classifications of the Hyphomycetes. The genus Oospora Wallroth 

 includes forms which are quite unrelated to Actinomyces; these forms 

 should therefore not be ascribed to it. 



A real difficulty also presents itself when an attempt is made to pick 

 the type of the genus. It would seem certainly that to it the name 

 Actinomyces hovis should be given. Harz did not publish cultural 

 characters. It is impossible to determine with certainty just what his 



