1887

Abstract

The original description (2) of (Leichmann) Beijerinck 1901 was confused with that of Beijerinck 1901. Although Opinion 38 of the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology (16, 17) accepts as the type species, the status of is unclear, and the name has probably not been validly published. To clarify matters, the synonomy and description of (neotype strain ATCC 9649) are herein up-dated; as a corollary, we request the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology to issue an Opinion conserving and associating its concept with the description of the herein designated neotype strain of , ATCC 14931. As a separate matter, a number of species names have been erroneously attributed to Holland (74); these citations are appropriately reviewed and corrected as follows: (Orla-Jensen) Bergey et al. 1925—designated neotype strain ATCC 15009, (Orla-Jensen) Bergey et al. 1934—designated neotype strain ATCC 12315, (Orla-Jensen) comb. nov.—designated neotype strain ATCC 11842, (Orla-Jensen) Bergey et al. 1923—type strain ATCC 14917. Concepts associated with the above names and with (Henneberg) Bergey et al.—designated neotype strain ATCC 4797, (Henneberg) Bergey et al. 1923—designated neotype strain ATCC 4005, and (Orla-Jensen) Bergey et al. 1934—designated neotype strain ATCC 14869, are discussed in a modern context. Basionyms and other synonyms, author citations, descriptions of type and neotype strains, and justifications of the proposals are presented.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-21-2-177
1971-04-01
2020-01-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-21-2-177
Loading

Most cited articles

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error