66 The Philippine Journal of Science i9i» 
that through formal adoption by the proper bodies nomma 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 ActinomycesJ 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, blit 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 photostat repro- 
ductions were made, one of which Mr. Ricker forwarded to us. To these 
gentleman we express our appreciation. 
