i)Q The Philippine Journal of Science m» 



that through formal adoption by the proper bodies nomina con- 

 servanda are validated; however, neither of the societies men- 

 tioned has authority to do this in botany. 



There remains to be considered, then, the name next applied 

 to this genus. This was published by Rivolta, in 1878, when 

 he proposed, definitely and distinctly, to substitute Discomyces 

 for Actinomyces.- The reason for which he did this is an in- 

 valid one; he believed that Actinomyces was not properly de- 

 scriptive of the organism and, unhampered by rules of 

 nomenclature, adopted Discomyces as preferable in this respect. 

 He was undoubtedly not aware of the fact that the former had 

 been used before, but it is on this ground rather than that on 

 which he advanced his new name that Discomyces is valid. 



Vuillemin, and more recently Chalmers and Christopherson, 

 in advocating Nocardia as the valid generic name, hold that 

 Rivolta's use of Discomyces was trivial and without botanical 

 significance. We do not agree with this argument, which is 

 clearly refuted by Rivolta's original paper. Here he distinctly 

 proposes Discomyces bovis as the name for the organism called 

 Actinomyces bovis by Harz in a manner that must be acknowl- 

 edged as valid from the viewpoint of botany, even though it is 

 not in conventional form and was advocated on irrelevant, in- 

 adequate grounds. Therefore, it is in no sense a "medical 

 genus," as Vuillemin asserts. The fact that subsequently 

 Rivolta erroneously referred other organisms to this genus has 

 no bearing on the case. His original application of it was to 

 the organism of Bollinger and Harz alone, which is, therefore, 

 the type of the genus. Nor does the fact that, to propitiate 

 Harz, Rivolta later agreed to accept Actinomyces affect the 

 question. As Blanchard pointed out, a name once introduced 



• The definite manner in which this substitution was made has been 

 generally ignored, possibly because of the inaccessibility of the original 

 paper, it having been published in an Italian veterinary journal. The 

 rarity of this publication is exemplified by the difficulty that we have had 

 in consulting it. The 1878 volume of Clinica Veterinaria was found to 

 be missing from the set of this periodical in the Surgeon-General's library 

 in Washington, whereupon Mr. P. L. Ricker, of the United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, to whom we had applied, requested it from Mr. B. B. 

 Woodward, librarian of the British Museum. He, not finding the publi- 

 cation in that library, forwarded the request to Mr. F. Bullock, of the 

 Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, through whose kindness a separate 

 of Rivolta's article was forwarded to Washington, where pl^otostat repro- 

 ductions were made, one of which Mr. Ricker forwarded to us. To these 

 gentleman we express our appreciation. 



