190 GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 



with Micrococcus, the species becoming Micrococcus Billrothii (Cohn) 

 Migula. The species Ascococcus cantrahridgensis described by Hankin 

 from the mouth of a student at Cambridge is noted by Lehmann and 

 Neumann (1901, p. 179). Winslow and Rogers (1905, p. 669) revived 

 Cienkowski's name, Ascococcus mesenteroides as the type of their 

 emended genus Ascococcus (Cohn) Winslow and Rogers. This was 

 characterized later at greater length (1908, p. 136). The Winslows 

 discuss the name Ascococcus Billrothii of Cohn. They conclude that 

 because of the cheesy odor and frequent confusion by Cohn of cocci 

 and bacilli, that in all probability Cohn studied a rod-shaped organism. 

 It would seem that they are in error in this matter, for the illustrations 

 accompanying Cohn's description are very distinctive. They also 

 note Cienkowski's use of the term Ascococcus and state 



Van Tieghem (1878) a little later worked on the same form and substituted 

 for Ascococcus the generic name Leuconostoc in order to emphasize the resem- 

 blance between the zoogloea-forming coccus and the blue-green alga, Nostoc. 



This would seem to be scarcely a full statement of the case. Van 

 Tieghem concluded that the organism of Cienkowski differed so mark- 

 edly from Cohn's description of Ascococcus that a new generic designa- 

 tion was required. The Winslows emend the diagnosis of Ascococcus 

 to conform to modern conceptions. It would seem that they are misled, 

 perhaps, by the apparent appropriateness of the name Ascococcus. 

 There seems to be little question but that Cohn's Ascococcus was a 

 form entirely distinct from A . mesenteroides, and the generic designation 

 should be reserved for Cohn's species. If Van Tieghem was in error 

 in believing that Cienkowski's organism deserved generic separation 

 from Ascococcus, then the name used by the latter may be revived. It 

 should be noted that Winslow's designation Ascococcus (Cohn) Winslow 

 and Rogers, is incorrect. Article 41 of the International Rules reads: 

 "An alteration of the constituent characters or of the circumscription 

 of a group does not warrant the quotation of another author than the 

 one who first published the name or combination of names." The name 

 Ascococcus was rejected by Erwin F. Smith (1905, p. 174). Vuillemin 

 (1913, p. 520) lists Ascococcus Billroth 1874 as one of his "Formogenera 

 conservanda." 



Mace (1913, p. 433, 435, 646) is almost alone among recent writers 

 in recognition of this generic name. He gives an extended description 

 of A. Billrothii Cohn and A. equi Mace. 



