XIV, 1 Merrill and Wade: The Validity of Discomyces 65 



tionably a valid, recognized genus, and Streptothrix Cohn must 

 fall. 



Actinomyces was used by Harz with but a very limited 

 knowledge of the organism to which he applied it, evidently 

 without suspecting its possible relationship to Cohn's Strepto- 

 thrix foersteri and probably without being aware of Meyen's 

 use of the name. Whether or not this newer application is 

 valid, as most writers seem at least tacitly to agree, depends 

 on the validity of its preemption by Meyen. That it is valid 

 is evident from the following transcription from the original 

 publication : 



Actinomyce 



Sporidochia, cellulis hyalinis simplicibus enormiter et multipliciter 

 ramificantibus sporis impletis, substantiae uniformi gelatinosa hyalina 

 induta. 

 Actinomyce Horkelii 



R. forma irregulari sphaeroidea, gelatinosa duritie ad basin augente 

 usque ad consistentiam cartilaginosam, colore hyalino-subcoeruleo. Hab. 

 in pinguedine et pleuris animalium aquae submersis, autumno prope 

 Coloniam Agrippinam. 



Zum Schlusse wage ich noch, etwas iiber das beginnende Wachsthum 

 dieses Pilzes zu sagen. Der Pilz ist nicht eine Krankheitsform eines 

 Organismus, sondern er ist ein eigener Organismus, ein eigenes Leben 

 unabhangig von seinem Mutterboden, aber dennoch von demselben be- 

 schriinkt. 



It is to be noted that Meyen used the name Actinomyce. 

 While by some the use of this form might conceivably be argued 

 not to invalidate Actinomyces, the derivation of the two is identi- 

 cal, and the argument cannot hold. Actinomyce horkelii Meyen 

 is now an organism of uncertain status. Although it was 

 described by Meyen as a fungus, the description apparently ap- 

 plies to one of the colonial Cyanophycese. The genus is not 

 recognized in either mycological or algological literature. How- 

 ever, the description of both the genus and the species is indis- 

 putably valid, and in the present connection the question of its 

 identity is unimportant. In being validly published, it invali- 

 dates the further use of the same name for another group of 

 organisms in the plant kingdom. 



From the foregoing it is evident that by the accepted principles 

 of botanical nomenclature both of these names are preoccupied. 

 To deny on this ground either of them and yet accept the other, 

 as has been done, is inconsistent. Recommendation of "strepto- 

 tricosis" by 'a committee of the Pathological Society of London 

 cannot be accepted as competent to validate Streptothrix, nor 

 can the adoption by the Botanical Section of the First Inter- 

 national Congress of Pathology validate Nocardia. It is true 



