XIV, 1 Merrill and Wade: The Validity of Discomyces 59 



to which the organism of actinomycosis belonged, showed true 

 branching. They concluded that the latter really belonged to 

 Oospora Wallroth (1831), but that, whether or not this was 

 correct, it was necessary to discard Streptothrix Cohn because 

 of Corda's use of this name in 1839. De Toni and Trevisan's 

 description of Nocardia as falsely branching was incorrect, for 

 although Nocard(47) had originally so described his "Bacille de 

 farcin," Metchinkoff had found that it was a true-branching 

 organism. Kanthack(30) accepted Oospora and created the 

 name Oospora indica for the parasite of Madura disease, having 

 demonstrated the identity of actinomycosis and of certain myce- 

 tomas. Lehmann and Neumann, (33) in 1896, introduced Myco- 

 bacterium as a family name for a group that they considered 

 intermediate between the Hyphomycetes and the Schizomycetes, 

 but rather more closely related to the former, and at first 

 adopted Oospora as the generic name for the organisms under 

 discussion. 



Gasperini,(24) in 1894, proposed the use of Actinomyces to 

 include the whole group, discarding Streptothrix; he listed eight- 

 een species. Berestnew,(6) in 1897, accepted Actinomyces as 

 valid and later (7) called attention to Gasperini's publication, 

 which apparently had been overlooked. Lachner-Sandoval,(32) 

 in 1898, pointed out the invalidity of Oospora in this connection 

 and also adopted Actinomyces. Levy (34) reviewed the question, 

 concluding that all the described types were generically related 

 and that Actinomyces was the proper designation for them. He 

 did not note Rivolta's original application of Discomyces. Leh- 

 mann and Neumann, in the second (1899) edition of their .work, 

 substituted the family name Actinomycetes Lachner-Sandoval 

 for their own Mycobacterium, the pathogenic forms placed in 

 the genus Oospora now becoming Actinomyces. This broader 

 application of the term to the entire group is not now widely 

 accepted, though Mallory,(40) after Gasperini, employed it ten- 

 tatively, and Babes (4) and other German authors still use it. 



Migula, in his earlier (1895) classification, (43) included these 

 organisms among the higher bacteria, in his family Chlamydo- 

 bacteriace8&. He separated Streptothrix Cohn from Cladothrix, 

 giving it a much modified diagnosis. In Cladothrix Cohn he 

 included C. bovis (Harz) Migula (Actinomyces bovis Harz) and 

 C.foersteri (Cohn) Schroter {Streptothrix foersteriCoYm) ,i\i\x& 

 perpetuating the error of the earlier systematists. As already 

 noted. Mace had adopted this generic name, although from a 

 diflferent viewpoint. Later (45) Migula modified this genus rad- 



