THE VALIDITY OF THE NAME DISCOMYCES FOR THE 
GENUS OF FUNGI VARIOUSLY CALLED ACTINO- 
MYCES, STREPTOTHRIX, AND NOCARDIA 
By E. D. Merrill and H. W. Wade 
{From the Botanical and Bacteriological Sections of the Biological Labora- 
tory, Bureau of Science, Manila) 
The nomenclature of the group of fungi the pathogenic mem- 
bers of which produce the various actinomycoses, so-called, has 
been the subject of a confusion that resulted from an unusual 
combination of circumstances. For some time it was a moot 
question whether the organisms were of bacterial or of fungous 
nature, in part because of erroneous conceptions of their mor- 
phology, which is complex and variable, and differs widely in 
different strains; even yet opinions differ as to whether or not 
the forms involved should be included in a single genus. One 
of the types, a saprophyte, Streptothrix foersteri Cohn, was for 
a time erroneously included in a genus of the higher bacteria, 
Vv^hile the first pathogenic species described, Actinomyces bovis 
Harz, having been recognized as a fungus, was given a different 
generic name. The question was further complicated by the 
fact that both names had long before been employed for entirely 
different organisms. Since then some authors have held one 
invalid, some the other, and some have rejected both. Other 
names have been misapplied from time to time, while new ones 
have been proposed, the list now including a total of ten. 
As is too frequently the case, the systematist and the pathol- 
ogist have tended to ignore the work and the viewpoint of one 
another. Medical writers, who almost exclusively have been con- 
cerned with the study of these organisms and consequently the 
use of their names, have been very prone to choose these from 
the viewpoint of convenience and local custom rather than to 
recognize and adhere to the rules of nomenclature by which 
modern biologists are bound. On the other hand, botanists have 
overlooked or ignored — and they still do this — names and de- 
scriptions that have, in sincerity but without the formality cus- 
tomary with themselves, been published by medical writers. It 
is to consider the matter from both viewpoints in an effort to 
determine the actually correct designation that we have collabor- 
ated in a review of the vicissitudes of nomenclature that this 
group has undergone. 
55 
