1887

Abstract

The wording of Rule 15 as originally published in the 1975 and 1990 revisions of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria with regard to the definition of

nomenclatural types

was not clearly expressed and was modified by the Judicial Commission in 2008. However, there is a difference between the wording as proposed and that accepted. On reflection there is justification for re-examining both the proposed and the accepted wording.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.000310
2015-08-01
2020-01-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/65/8/2766.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.000310&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Buchanan R.E. , St John-Brooks R. , Breed R.S. . ( 1948;). Inter‐national bacteriological code of nomenclature. J Bacteriol 55: 287–306 [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Buchanan R.E. , St John-Brooks R. , Breed R.S. . ( 1949;). International bacteriological code of nomenclature. J Gen Microbiol 3: 444–462 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Editorial Board ( 1966;). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1966 Revision). Int J Syst Bacteriol 16: 459–490 [CrossRef].
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Editorial Board of the International Committee on Bacteriological Nomenclature ( 1958;). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria and Viruses: Bacteriological Code Ames, IA: Iowa State College Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Garrity G.M. , Labeda D.P. , Oren A. . ( 2011;). Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes XIIth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology: Minutes of the meetings, 3, 4 and 6 August 2008, Istanbul, Turkey. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 61: 2775–2780.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lapage S.P. , Clark W.A. , Lessel E.F. , Seeliger H.P.R. , Sneath P.H.A. . ( 1973;). Proposed revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol 23: 83–108 [CrossRef].
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lapage S.P. , Sneath P.H.A. , Lessel E.F. , Skerman V.B.D. , Seeliger H.P.R. , Clark W.A. , (editors) . ( 1975;). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 Revision). Bacteriological Code Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology;.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lapage S.P. , Sneath P.H.A. , Lessel E.F. , Skerman V.B.D. , Seeliger H.P.R. , Clark W.A. , (editors) . ( 1992;). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 Revision). Bacteriological Code Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology;.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. McNeill J. , Barrie F.R. , Buck W.R. , Demoulin V. , Greuter W. , Hawksworth D.L. , Herendeen P.S. , Knapp S. , Marhold K. , other authors . ( 2012;). International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code). Adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. Regnum Vegetabile, pp. 154. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag KG.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Stackebrandt E. , Seiler H. , Schleifer K.H. . ( 1982;). Union of the genera Cellulomonas Bergey et al. Oerskovia Prauser et al. in a redefined genus Cellulomonas . Zentralbl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infektionskr Hyg Abt 1 Orig C3: 401–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Stackebrandt E. , Seiler H. , Schleifer K.H. . ( 1983;). Cellulomonas turbata in Validation List No. 10. Int J Syst Bacteriol 33: 438–440.[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Stackebrandt E. , Breymann S. , Steiner U. , Prauser H. , Weiss N. , Schumann P. . ( 2002;). Re-evaluation of the status of the genus Oerskovia, reclassification of Promicromonospora enterophila (Jáger et al. 1983) as Oerskovia enterophila comb. nov. and description of Oerskovia jenensis sp. nov. and Oerskovia paurometabola sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52: 1105–1111 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Tindall B.J. . ( 2008;). Rule 15 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria: a current source of confusion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58: 1775–1778 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Tindall B.J. , Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes . ( 2014;). Agrobacterium radiobacter (Beijerinck and van Delden 1902) Conn 1942 has priority over Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith and Townsend 1907) Conn 1942 when the two are treated as members of the same species based on the principle of priority and Rule 23a, Note 1 as applied to the corresponding specific epithets. Opinion 94. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 64: 3590–3592 [CrossRef] [PubMed].
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.000310
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