58 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
1919 
Mace (37) also confused the genera, but in a new fashion. In 
1888 he erroneously described for Cladothrix dichotoma a process 
of true branching and adopted (38) this generic name for the 
ray-fungus group. Sauvageau and Radais hold that he had never 
had the true Cladothrix under observation. 
Affanassiew(i) at first called the organism of actinomycosis 
Bacterium actino cladothrix, but in the following year, 1889, 
Affanassiew and Schulz (2) gave the term Actinocladothrix gen- 
eric rank. The only evidence that we have encountered of the 
use of this name by anyone else is the mention, without refer- 
ence, of “Actinocladothrix nocardi,” in an article by Haass.(27) 
De Toni and Trevisan, in Saccardo’s Syllo^e Fungorum, (20) 
accepted these organisms as belonging to the Schizomyce- 
tacea3. In the Cladothricese : “Sporae (arthrosporae) in fila- 
mentis normalibus obvenientes. Filamenta pseudo-ramosa” they 
included Sphaerotilus, Cladothrix, and a genus that they called 
Nocardia Trevisan : “Filamenta evaginata. Arthrosporae trans- 
formatione cocci singuli ortae.” In this genus they included 
Streptothrix Cohn, non Corda; Actinomyces Harz, non Meyen; 
and Discomyces Rivolta, five species being defined. The descrip- 
tion of these organisms as falsely branching was, of course, 
erroneous. 
In 1890 Almquist(3) and Gasperini(23) described certain or- 
ganisms that they identified as species of Cohn’s Streptothrix. 
Kruse held that these species fell, with the organism of actinomy- 
cosis, into Zopf’s Cladothrix group. Rossi-Doria (55) soon de- 
scribed six new species of Streptothrix from the air and classed 
Actinomyces bovis Harz, which he is said to have renamed Strep- 
tothrix actinomyces, with them. Kruse (3i) later also employed 
Streptothrix, differentiating it from Cladothrix. 
From cases of actinomycosis in man Bostroem(H) repeatedly 
cultivated an organism that differed distinctly from that culti- 
vated by Israel. He concluded that it belonged to the Cladothrix 
group of the Schizomycetes and pointed out that it might be 
related to, or even identical with, Streptothrix foersteri Cohn. 
Gruber, (26) in 1891, described as Micromyces hofmanni an 
organism that subsequent authors have included in the group 
under discussion. 
Sauvageau and Radais’s(56) discussion of the confusion of 
Cohn’s Cladothrix and Streptothrix has been referred to. They 
believed that the two were distinct; that Cladothrix, the most 
differentiated of the Bacteriacese, was falsely branched; and 
that Streptothrix, a true though very low hyphomycetous fungus. 
