1887

Abstract

In a companion paper, we requested the Judicial Commission to correct the type strain of from ATCC 15468 to NCMB 74 (=ATCC 23309). Correction of this error on the 1980 Approved Lists by an Opinion of the Judicial Commission will remove the status of the name as a junior objective synonym of . This is important because the scientific community continues to use the name almost exclusively instead of . However, the corrective action of this Opinion will cause a new problem. and will then become objective synonyms because both species will have the same type strain NCMB 74, and would have priority because it was published first (1890 vs. 1987). Thus, rather than would become the correct name for DNA hybridization group 6. has had a very confusing history since it was first described as by Zimmermann in 1890. It was without a type strain for over 50 years, and unfortunately, has had an incorrect type strain for some 40 years. The name as a bacterial species has been used incorrectly in the literature very frequently, either based on the wrong type strain or with the wrong definition or circumscription. The name is not accepted or used by most specialists who study and publish scientific papers and reviews on . Under the heading ‘’ Rule 56a of the Bacterial Code states reasons why the Judicial Commission can reject a name, the first is: ‘(1) An ambiguous name (), i.e., a name which has been used with different meanings and thus has become a source of error’. Rule 56a gives the Judicial Commission authority to place names on the list of rejected names. Our analysis of its history leads us to state unequivocally that currently is, and has been throughout the vast majority of its history, an ambiguous name. After considering all the possible alternatives and their consequences we request the Judicial Commission to go against the rules of priority; to invoke case (1) of Rule 56a, and issue an Opinion conserving over ; and to place the name on the list of rejected names. We argue that these actions will give instant stability to a complex and confusing situation by making rather than the correct name for ‘ DNA hybridization group 6’, an association that is almost universally accepted by the scientific community as reflected in the literature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003961
2020-01-14
2020-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Holmes B, Farmer III JJ. (in press) Correction of the type strain of Aeromonas punctata (Zimmermann 1890) Snieszko 1957 and of A. punctata subsp. punctata from ATCC 15468T to NCMB 74T (= NCIMB 74T = ATCC 23309T). Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Lapage SP, Sneath PHA, Lessel EF, Skerman VBD. Seeliger HPR Clark WA (1992) International code of nomenclature of bacteria (1990 revision) Washington, D. C.: American Society for Microbiology; 1992; p105
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Skerman VBD. McGowan V Sneath PHA Approved Lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980;30:225–420
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ewing WH, Hugh R, Johnson JG. Studies on the Aeromonas group Atlanta GA: Communicable Disease Center; 1961
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Snieszko SF.Genus IV. Aeromonas Kluyver and van Niel 1936 In Breed RS, Murray EGD, Smith NR. (editors) Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 7th ed. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co; 1957; pp189–193
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Schubert RHW, Gibbons NE.Genus II. Aeromonas Kluyver and van Niel 1936 In Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE. (editors) Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8th ed. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co; 1974; pp345–348
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eddy BP. Cephalotrichous, fermentative gram-negative bacteria: the genus Aeromonas. J Appl Bacteriol 1960;23:216–249 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schubert RHW. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the genus Aeromonas Kluyver and van Niel 1936: Part I. Suggestions on the taxonomy and nomenclature of the aerogenic Aeromonas species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1967;17:23–37 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Opinion 48: rejection of the name Aerobacter liquefaciens Beijerinck and conservation of the name Aeromonas Stanier with Aeromonas hydrophila as the type species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1973;23:473–474 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Zimmermann OER. Die Bakterien Unserer Trink- Und Nutzwässer, Insbesondere Des Wassers Der Chemnitzer Wasserleitung. I. Reihe, Elfter Bericht Der Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Chemnitz 1890; pp54–154
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Schubert RHW. Hegazi M Aeromonas eucrenophila species nova Aeromonas caviae a later and illegitimate synonym of Aeromonas punctata. Zbl Bakt Hyg A 1988;268:34–39
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Validation list N° 27. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1988;449
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Huys G, Kämpfer P, Altwegg M, Coopman R, Janssen P et al. Inclusion of Aeromonas DNA hybridization group 11 in Aeromonas encheleia and extended descriptions of the species Aeromonas eucrenophila and A. encheleia. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997;47:1157–1164 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003961
Loading
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