60 ^^^^ Philippine Journal of Science im 



ically, removing those species that are now recognized to belong 

 to the fungi. 



Engler, in his Syllabus, (21) included Harz's organism in the 

 genus Sphaerotilus as "Sph. (Actinomyces) bovis," thus adding 

 a new name to the list of synonyms. He had not revised this 

 grouping in the fifth (1907) edition. 



Discomyces Rivolta was shown to be the correct designation 

 for the genus by Blanchard(9) who, stimulated by Levy's and 

 Berestnew's articles, reviewed the question of nomenclature. In 

 adopting this term he had changed his earlier opinion, for he 

 had previously (8) employed Nocardia. His argument is based 

 on accepted principles and should carry conviction. Previous 

 to this the term had been practically ignored. It is true that 

 Sheube(57) cites Nocard and then Blanchard as having advo- 

 cated this term for Discomyces (Streptothrix) indica, but we 

 have been unable to find any publication by Nocard in which 

 it is used; on the other hand, in the third (1903) edition of 

 Nocard and le Clainche's Maladies Microbiennes des Ani- 

 maux,(48) Actinomyces is used in connection with actinomy- 

 cosis and Streptothrix with "farcin du boeuf." Gedoelst(25) 

 evidently accepted Blanchard's decision, for he designated the 

 genus Discomyces Rivolta 1878, and the organism of actinomy- 

 cosis Discomyces bovis (Harz 1877) Rivolta 1878. Stitt(59) is 

 apparently the only American authority who has adopted this 

 name. Brumpt(i2) in a discussion of the mycetomas, used 

 Discomyces and still subscribes to it, for in discussing organisms 

 presented in 1913 by Pinoy(5l) to the Societe de Pathologie 

 exotique (Paris) as Nocardia he used the former rather than the 

 latter term. Manson,(4l) in subscribing to Brumpt's classifica- 

 tion of the mycetomas> also used the same nomenclature. Cas- 

 tellani and Chalmers (13) employed Discomyces in 1910, although 

 they later discarded it. 



A new name was introduced by Lignieres and Spitz, (35) who 

 called a subtype of this group Actinobacillus. In a later arti- 

 cle (36) they acknowledged the strict propriety of Blanchard's 

 argument in regard to the application of Discomyces to the 

 general group, although they continued to use Streptothrix. 



During this period certain German authors had adopted Acti- 

 nomyces and Streptothrix as separate genera. This is exempli- 

 fied by Petrusky's(50) classification in which they are placed in 

 a family which he terms Trichomycetes. Wright (62) believed 

 that Actinomyces should be retained for the organism of actino- 

 mycosis, which he emphatically maintained should be differ- 

 entiated generically from other organisms of the group. He 



