1887

Abstract

The International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes has formally made final decisions, taking into account the conclusions of the Judicial Commission, on three pending Requests for an Opinion, thereby allowing the corresponding Opinions to be issued. According to Opinion 100, the request for the recognition of strain A1-86 (=DSM 17629=NCIMB 14373) as the neotype strain of (Hauduroy 1937) Prévot 1938 (Approved Lists 1980) is denied, ruling that a neotype does not need to be designated for because strain VPI 0990 (=ATCC 33656=CIP 105953) is considered to be a duplicate isolate of the same strain as VPI 0989 (=ATCC 25578) and may serve as its nomenclatural type. Opinion 101 approves the request that strain ATCC 25946 (=DSM 14877) serves as the type strain of instead of strain ATCC 25944, formally correcting the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Opinion 102 concludes that strain Cc m8 (=DSM 14697=CIP 109128=JCM 12621) is an established neotype strain for the species , replacing the designated type strain Windsor M271, and that strain Mx s8 (=DSM 14675=JCM 12634) is an established neotype strain for the species , replacing the designated type strain Windsor M78, with some additional considerations about the nature of the type material replaced and about the name () .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004390
2020-08-19
2020-10-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Duncan SH, Flint HJ. Proposal of a neotype strain (A1-86) for Eubacterium rectale. Request for an opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1735–1736 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hauduroy P, Ehringer G, Urbain A, Guillot G, Magrou J. Dictionnaire Des Bactéries Pathogènes Paris: Masson and Co; 1937
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Prévot AR. ÉTudes De Systématique Bactérienne 60 Annales de l'Institut Pasteur (Paris); 1938 pp 285–307
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Skerman VBD, Sneath PHA, McGowan V. Approved Lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1980; 30:225–420 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International Code of Nomenclature of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:S1–S111 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Moore WEC, Holdeman Moore LV. Genus Eubacterium Prévot 1938, 294AL . In Sneath PHA, Mair NS, Sharpe ME, Holt JG. (editors) Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology 2, 1st ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1986 pp 1353–1373
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Judicial Commission Of The International Committee On Systematics Of Prokaryotes Trüper HG. Strain NCIMB 13488 may serve as the type strain of Halorubrum trapanicum. Opinion 74. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:933 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Whitman WB, Bull CT, Busse H-J, Fournier P-E, Oren A et al. Request for revision of the statutes of the International Committee on Systematics of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:584–593 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Rosero JA, Killer Jirˇí, Sechovcová H, Mrázek J, Benada Oldrˇich et al. Reclassification of Eubacterium rectale (Hauduroy et al. 1937) Prévot 1938 in a new genus Agathobacter gen. nov. as Agathobacter rectalis comb. nov., and description of Agathobacter ruminis sp. nov., isolated from the rumen contents of sheep and cows. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:768–773 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Sheridan PO, Duncan SH, Walker AW, Scott KP, Louis P et al. Objections to the proposed reclassification of Eubacterium rectale as Agathobacter rectalis . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2106 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Rosero JA, Killer Jirˇí, Sechovcová H, Mrázek J, Benada Oldrˇich et al. Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Paul O. Sheridan, Sylvia H. Duncan, Alan W. Walker, Karen P. Scott, Petra Louis and Harry J. Flint, referring to our paper 'Reclassification of Eubacterium rectale (Prévot et al. 1967) in a new genus Agathobacter gen. nov., as Agathobacter rectalis comb. nov., within the family Lachnospiraceae, and description of Agathobacter ruminis sp. nov., from the rumen', Int J Syst Evol Microbiol, DOI 10.1099/ijsem.0.000788. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2107 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Zuo G, Hao B. Whole-genome-based phylogeny supports the objections against the reclassification of Eubacterium rectale to Agathobacter rectalis . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2451 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lang E, Spröer C. Replacement of ATCC 25944T, the current type strain of Melittangium lichenicola, with ATCC 25946. Request for an opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:2991–2992 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. McCurdy HD. Studies on the taxonomy of the Myxobacterales: IV. Melittangium. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1971; 21:50–54 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Thaxter R. On the Myxobacteriaceæ, a new order of Schizomycetes. Bot Gaz 1892; 17:389–406 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lang E, Stackebrandt E. Emended descriptions of the genera Myxococcus and Corallococcus, typification of the species Myxococcus stipitatus and Myxococcus macrosporus and a proposal that they be represented by neotype strains. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:2122–2128 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. McCurdy HD. Studies on the taxonomy of the Myxobacterales. I. Record of Canadian isolates and survey of methods. Can J Microbiol 1969; 15:1453–1461 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. McCurdy HD. Studies on the taxonomy of the Myxobacterales II. Polyangium and the demise of the Sorangiaceae. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1970; 20:283–296 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. McCurdy HD. Studies on the taxonomy of the Myxobacterales: III. Chondromyces and Stigmatella. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1971; 21:40–49 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Reichenbach H. Genus II. Corallococcus gen. nov. (Chondrococcus Jahn 1924, 85). In Brenner J, Krieg NR, Staley JT, Garrity GM. (editors) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (The Proteobacteria), part C (The Alpha-, Beta-, Delta-, and Epsilonproteobacteria New York: Springer; 2005 pp 1079–1082
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Euzéby J. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:893–897 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Krzemieniewska H, Krzemieniewski S. Miksobakterje Polski [Die Myxobakterien von Polen]. Acta Soc Bot Pol 1926; 4:1–54 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zahler SA, McCurdy HD. Genus I. Myxococcus Thaxter 1892, 403. In Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE. (editors) Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 8th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1974 pp 79–83
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Zukal H. Über die Myxobacterien.. Ber Deutsch Bot Ges 1897; 15:542–552
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004390
Loading

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

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