GENERAL SYSTEMATIC BACTERIOLOGY 295 



species of Rivolta are not included here, but under BolUngera Trevisan 

 (p. 1039) as BolUngera equi Trev. and B. Vacchetae Trevisan. 



This generic name has generally been disregarded because of confu-. 

 sion with the Discomycetes among the sac bearing fungi, because of 

 the priority of other generic names and because of the lack of a careful 

 characterization of the organisms. The species described as Dis- 

 comyces equi is generally regarded as a capsulated coccus and not a 

 filamentous form related to Actinomyces at all. 



Blanchard (1895) came to the conclusion that the older generic 

 name Actinomyces was invalid because of its prior use to designate an 

 um'elated fungus, and proposed the use of Discomyces to replace it. 

 In this proposal he has been follow^ed by Brumpt (1910, p. 842). 



Discomyces is definitely rejected by Smith (1905, p. 174) and by 

 VuiUemin (1913, p. 527). 



Merrill and Wade (1919, p. 64) review the status of this name very 

 completely, and conclude that it is the valid designation. They say: 



Vuillemiu, and more recently Chalmers and Christopherson, in advocating 

 Nocardia as the valid generic name, hold that Rivolta's use of Discomyces was 

 trivial and without botanical significance. We do not agree with this argument, 

 which is clearly refuted by Rivolta's original paper. Here he distinctlj'^ proposes 

 Discomyces hovis as the name for the organism called Actinomyces bovis by Harz 

 in a manner that must be acknowledged as valid from the viewpoint of botany, 

 even though it is not in conventional form and was advocated on irrelevant, inade- 

 quate grounds. Therefore, it is in no sense a "medical genus," as VuiUemin 

 asserts. The fact that subsequently Rivolta erroneously referred other organ- 

 isms to this genus has no bearing on the case. His original application of it was to 

 the organism of Bollinger and Harz alone, which is, therefore, the type of the 

 genus. Nor does the fact that to propitiate Harz, Rivolta later agreed to accept 

 Actinomyces affect the question. As Blanchard pointed out, a name once intro- 

 duced is no longer the property of its originator to withdraw or modify at will. 



Finally, to argue, as do Chalmers and Christopherson, that Discomycetaceae, 

 a group name, invalidates Discomyces, as a generic name in the connection in 

 which Rivolta used it, on the ground that the type genus of Fries's Discomyceta- 

 ceae, published in 1836, should bear the designation Discomyces, indicates an 

 erroneous conception of the principles of nomenclature and priority in technical 

 names; a family name such as Discomycetaceae cannot invalidate a similar spe- 

 cific name. This generic name was new with Rivolta, and there is no valid 

 objection to its adoption in taxonomy. 



For reasons for the invalidity of Discomyces see Actinomyces. 

 In the present work Discomyces is regarded as a synonym of Actino- 

 myces. 



