iiisToincAi. I'.ACKCHorxn 



inji tlirc'ids niiiiiiii<;' parallel to ()ii(> aiiollicr 

 or in xarious directions, curNinj;" and in 

 places also \\a\y." This type of <i;r()\vlli re- 

 niindiHl C'ohn of the cui\al ui'es of spii'illa 

 and spirochaetes, althon^li it was nioi-e irre<;- 

 iilar. The threails were fonnd to break up 

 into frajj;nuMits, some of which reached a 

 lonp;th of 50 ju. The branching (ilanients weiv 

 surrounded with masses of micrococci, filling 

 the spaces between llu> threads. These fila- 

 ments were distinctly dilTerent fi"om the 

 straight, thick, and unbranched (false- 

 branching) Lcptothrix bitccalis commonh^ 

 found in the mouth. The photographs of the 

 organism published by Cohn leave no doubt 

 that this was a true actinomycete. Cohn con- 

 sidered this organism to be a bacterial form 

 with branching myceUum, though all at- 

 tempts to cultivate the organism failed. 



Two years later, Harz examined a patho- 

 logic specimen, obtained from "lumpy jaw" 

 of cattle and submitted to him by Bollinger. 

 He gave to the organism observed in this 

 specimen the generic name Actinomyces and 

 the specific name bovis. Xo pure culture was 

 obtained. The masses of filaments were found 

 to be arranged radially, which suggested the 

 name "actino-myces" or "ray-fungus." 



Neither of these two generic descriptions 

 was universally accepted, largely because 

 the first (Strcptothrix) had been preempted 

 in 1839 by Corda for a true fungus and the 

 second (Actinomyces) had been meeting 

 with much criticism, because the descrip- 

 tion of the organism was based on its etiol- 

 ogy rather than on its morphology and cul- 

 tural characteristics. 



The first isolations of pure cultures of ac- 

 tinomycetes from human and animal infec- 

 tions involved some difficult problems in 

 ecology and taxonomy. They were the pri- 

 mary causes of much confusion in the history 

 of actinomycetes. O. Israel claims to have 

 isolated in 1884, from a human infection, an 

 aerobic filamentous organism, the hyphae 

 undergoing ready fragmentation. Bostroem 



claims to ha\c isolated in ISS."), ;ilso from 

 human casi s, an aei'obic, lilamentous, spcn'e- 

 forming culture. Xocard isolated an aerol)ic 

 cnhure in ISSS from an animal infection. 

 This was followed ( bSS'Jj by the isolation 

 from a human infection of an aerobic cultui'e 

 l)y Afanassiev. In ]8!)(), I'lppinger isolated a 

 nonsporulating aerobic or-ganism, and Wolff 

 and .]. Israel isolated, the same year, a non- 

 spoi'ulating niicioaerophilic form. 



These cultures came fi'om dilfei'ent sources 

 and, l:)ecause of their lilamentous nature, 

 were considered to represent the isolates of 

 Cohn and Harz. None of the above isola- 

 tions were, however, the cause of as much 

 confusion as tlu^ report made b}' Bostroem 

 of his isolation in 18i)() of a pure aerobic cul- 

 ture of an actinomycete from a case of ac- 

 tinomycosis. This culture, now known to be 

 a Streptomyces, rapidly found a place among 

 the various collections and was believed at 

 first to be the true cause of actinomycosis. 

 The general consensus now is that this cul- 

 ture did not represent the causative agent 

 of the disease but was merely an air con- 

 taminant. Unfortunately, this error remained 

 to plague the subsequent literature of the 

 actinomycetes and became a cause of much 

 confusion. First, the claim that Actinomyces 

 bovis was an aerobe rather than an anaerobe 

 was wrong; second, the wide distribution of 

 the contaminant led many to assume that 

 actinomycosis w'as caused by an aerobic or- 

 ganism similar to the group now designated 

 as Streptomyces. 



For many years, investigators continued 

 to believe either that the causative agent of 

 actinomycosis was an aerobe or that there 

 were two forms, one an aerobe and the other 

 an anaerobe. There is no doubt now that Bos- 

 troem never succeeded in growing the true 

 etiologic agent of actinomj^cosis but that 

 some of his attempted isolates became con- 

 taminated with saprophytic actinomycetes 

 from the dust in the air, and thus resulted in 

 the mistaken isolation. Topley and Wilson 



