N()Mi:\('i,A'i"riv'i'; and (;i;\i:i{ai, s^s'l'^:.Ms ov ('I,assii'ic\ti(»n 



10 



hraiu'liinji;; he (Icsiiiiiatcd the ()i',<i;aiiisiii as 

 ( 'Uulolhri.v (istcroidi.s, thus iiit loducini!; ;iii- 

 othor sourco of confusion in iioiiuMiclaturc. 



l'(>trus('hky (191)^) attempted to re('oi«;ni/e 

 both Acliuumi/crti and Strcptothri.v as distinct 

 •iiMiera, Ixised upon the pathojj;enicity of the 

 former and tlie formation of aerial mycelium 

 l)y tin- latter. Krainsky (1!)1 1) did not con- 

 sider this difference sufficient to justify the 

 creation of two separate genera; he con- 

 sider(>d the actinomycetes to be closely re- 

 lated to the mycobacteria. Lehmann ami 

 Neumann (1912), however, suggested plac- 

 ing the actinomycetes, as an independent 

 group, between the hyphomycetes and the 

 schizomycetes. 



WoUenweber (1921) suggested division of 

 the genus Actinomyces into two subgenera: 

 J'ionnothrix, comprising the forms lacking 

 aerial mycelium and Aerothrix, forming a 

 true aerial mycelium. The name Mijcococcus 

 was proposed by Bokor, in 1930, for an 

 aerial-mycelium-producing actinomycete 

 that was able to decompose cellulose. Neither 

 the biochemical characteristics of the culture 

 nor its morphology justified the creation of 

 this new genus. 



In 1936, Brumpt placed the actinomy- 

 cetes, under the name, Microsiphonales, 

 among the Hyphomycetes. The forms para- 

 sitic to man were classified as one genus, 

 Actinomyces = Nocardia. 



In addition to the above names, \arious 

 others were suggested as generic designations 

 for the actinomycetes as a whole or for some 

 of its constituent groups. Among them were 

 Conidiomyces Perroncito (1875), Actino- 

 cladothrix Afanassiev (1889), Micromyces 

 G ruber (1891), Actinobacillus Lignieres and 

 Spitz (1904), Actinobacterinm Haas (190()), 

 Cohnistreptothrix Pinoy (1911), Actinococcus 

 Beijerinck (1914), Anaeromyces Castellani 

 et al. (1921 ), Euactinomyces Langeron (1922), 

 Brei'istreptothrix Lignieres (1924), Proactin- 

 omyces Jensen (1931), Asteroides Puntoni 

 and Leonardi (1935), and a number of others, 



such as Aclinoiihi/lit. /ndiilhi, ;in<l hididhij)- 

 siH. More recent ly, \arious addit ional generic 

 names, sucii as Micronionospora, Strcpto- 

 m ycis , Thcrmoactin omyces , A ctin oplanes , 

 Strcptospotamiiiim , Microbispora, ( 'hainia, 

 1 1 'oksmatt ia, Tlurmomonospora, Thermopoly- 

 sporn, wei'e suggested. 



Recognition of Species of Actinomycetes 



l]\(ni greater problems in the classifica- 

 tion of actinomycetes appeared in the recog- 

 nition of specific names, for two important 

 and obvious reasons: 1. No genera can be 

 established without the proper recognition 

 of species. 2. There are so many more species 

 than genera. H. J. Conn said, in 1917, that 

 "no species described in the past can be 

 regarded as characterized sufficiently for 

 recognition except those that are said to be 

 the cause of some definite disease." This 

 becomes particularly evident when one con- 

 siders such forms as Actinomyces chromo- 

 genus Gasperini, one of the more readily 

 recognized saprophytic forms. Its character- 

 istic property is the production of a brown 

 pigment on gelatin or peptone media, a 

 property ascribed by Beijerinck to the pro- 

 duction of a quinone. In 1914, Krainsky 

 reported four distinct organisms that agreed 

 fully with the original description of Gasp- 

 erini. Conn mentioned at least 30 forms the 

 published descriptions of which agreed with 

 the .1. chromogenus. The conclusion was 

 reached that this name should not be recog- 

 nized even for a group of organisms suffi- 

 ciently different from other groups. 



Similar confusion was found to exist as 

 regards other "species" described earlier, 

 such as Actinomyces alb us or A. odorifer. 

 Descriptions of these organisms were based 

 on the white color of the aerial mycelium or 

 on the formation of an odor, both being 

 properties characteristic of many distinct 

 forms of actinomycetes. As a result, none of 

 the earlier identifications can now be suffi 

 ciently recognized. 



