XIV, 1 Merrill and Wade: The Validity of Disoomyces 59 
to which the organism of actinomycosis belonged, showed true 
branching. They concluded that the latter really belonged to 
Oospora Wallroth (1831), but that, whether or not this was 
correct, it was necessary to discard Streptothrix Cohn because 
of Corda’s use of this name in 1839. De Toni and Trevisan’s 
description of Nocardia as falsely branching was incorrect, for 
although Nocard (47) had originally so described his “Bacille de 
farcin,” Metchinkoff had found that it was a true-branching 
organism. Kanthack(30) accepted Oospora and created the 
name Oospora, indica for the parasite of Madura disease, having 
demonstrated the identity of actinomycosis and of certain myce- 
tomas. Lehmann and Neumann, (33) in 1896, introduced Myco- 
bacterium as a family name for a group that they considered 
intermediate between the Hyphomycetes and the Schizomycetes, 
but rather more closely related to the former, and at first 
adopted Oospoi'a as the generic name for the organisms under 
discussion. 
Gasperini,(24) in 1894, proposed the use of Actinomyces to 
include the whole group, discarding Streptothrix; he listed eight- 
een species. Berestnew, (6) in 1897, accepted Actinomyces as 
valid and later (7) called attention to Gasperini’s publication, 
which apparently had been overlooked. Lachner-Sandoval,(32) 
in 1898, pointed out the invalidity of Oospora in this connection 
and also adopted Actinomyces. Levy (34) reviewed the question, 
concluding that all the described types were generically related 
and that Actinomyces was the proper designation for them. He 
did not note Rivolta’s original application of Discomyces. Leh- 
mann and Neumann, in the second (1899) edition of their work, 
substituted the family name Actinomycetes Lachner-Sandoval 
for their own Mycobacterium, the pathogenic forms placed in 
the genus Oospora now becoming Actinomyces.^ This broader 
application of the term to the entire group is not now widely 
accepted, though Mallory, (40) after Gasperini, employed it ten- 
tatively, and Babes (4) and other German authors still use it. 
Migula, in his earlier (189-5) classification, (43) included these 
organisms among the higher bacteria, in his family Chlamydo- 
bacteriaceaa. He separated Streptothrix Cohn from Cladothrix, 
giving it a much modified diagnosis. In Cladothrix Cohn he 
included C. bovis (Harz) Migula {Actinomyces bovis Harz) and 
C. foersteri (Cohn) Schroter {Streptothrix foersteri Cohn), thus 
perpetuating the error of the earlier systematists. As already 
noted, Mace had adopted this generic name, although from a 
different viewpoint. Later (45) Migula modified this genus rad- 
