1887

Abstract

In this paper the Judicial Commission provides general guidance for interpreting the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and specific assistance to authors, reviewers and editors of a Request for an Opinion, or of other suggestions related to the ICNP. The role of the Judicial Commission is recapitulated, particularly with respect to the processing of such Requests. Selected kinds of nomenclature-related proposals are discussed that are unsuitable as the basis for a Request. Particular emphasis is put on Requests for placing names or epithets on the list of , and a dichotomous identification key is provided to guide potential authors of a Request that targets the name of a species or subspecies because of issues with its type strain. To this end, the criteria for the valid publication of such names under the ICNP are revisited. Aspects of other kinds of Requests are also addressed. The study is based on a comprehensive review of all Judicial Opinions issued since the publication of the Approved Lists in 1980. One goal of this paper is to assist potential authors in deciding whether their concern should be the subject of a Request, and if so, in composing it with the greatest chance of success. It is also clarified how to obtain additional help regarding nomenclature-related issues.

  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005782
2023-03-13
2024-03-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/73/3/ijsem005782.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005782&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes – Prokaryotic Code (2008 Revision). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:S1–S111 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buchanan RE, Breed RS, St. John-Brooks R. Opinion 1. The correct spelling of the specific epithet in the species name Bacillus megaterium De Bary 1884. Approved by the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Bacteriological Nomenclature. Int Bullet Bacteriol Nomenclat Taxon 1951; 1:35–36 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arahal DR. Opinions 97, 98 and 99. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:1439–1440 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arahal DR. Opinions 100, 101 and 102. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5177–5181 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Göker M. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes: Minutes of the Meeting of 4 August 2021. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:5045 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arahal DR, Busse H-J, Bull CT, Christensen H, Chuvochina M et al. Judicial Opinions 103-111. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5197 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Göker M. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes: Minutes of the Meeting on 3 March 2022. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5395
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arahal DR, Busse H-J, Bull CT, Christensen H, Chuvochina M et al. Judicial Opinions 112-122. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5481 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Arahal DR, Busse H-J, Bull CT, Christensen H, Chuvochina M et al. Judicial Opinions 123-127. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73:5708
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Göker M. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes: Minutes of the Meeting on 27 July 2022. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5583 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Tindall BJ. Misunderstanding the Bacteriological Code. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:1313–1316 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Young JM. Suggestions for avoiding on-going confusion from the Bacteriological Code. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:1687–1689 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Tindall BJ. Clarifying rule 24a of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1779–1781 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Tindall BJ. Rule 15 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria: a current source of confusion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1775–1778 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Young JM. An overview of bacterial nomenclature with special reference to plant pathogens. Syst Appl Microbiol 2008; 31:405–424 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Tindall BJ. A commentary on the interpretation of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2334–2336 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Tindall BJ. What does Rule 18c of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria really say?. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:3622–3624 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Tindall BJ. Comments on minutes of the Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Chlamydiae and the Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Rhizobia and Agrobacteria . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2599–2601 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sutcliffe IC, Arahal DR, Göker M, Oren A. ICSP response to ‘Science depends on nomenclature, but nomenclature is not science’. Nat Rev Microbiol 2022; 20:249–250 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Oren A, Göker M, Hahnke RL, Moore ERB, R. Arahal D et al. ICSP response to ‘Regulating access can restrict participation in reporting new species and taxa’. Nat Microbiol 2022; 7:1711–1712 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Oren A, Göker M, Sutcliffe IC. New phylum names harmonize prokaryotic nomenclature. mBio 2022; 13:e0147922 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pukall R, Schumann P, Clermont D, Bizet C. Bacillus aeolius DSM 15084T (=CIP 107628T) is a strain of Bacillus licheniformis . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1268–1270 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Vereecke C, Arahal DR. The status of the species Pectinatus portalensis Gonzalez et al. 2005. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1507 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Podkopaeva D, Grabovich M, Kuever J, Lysenko AM, Tourova TP et al. Proposal of Spirillum winogradskyi sp. nov., a novel microaerophilic species, an emended description of the genus Spirillum and Request for an Opinion regarding the status of the species Spirillum volutans Ehrenberg 1832. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2009; 59:2916–2920 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Oggerin M, Rubio V, Marín I, Arahal DR. The status of the species Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2011; 61:1757–1759 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrity GM. Conservation of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and rejection of Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:311–312 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lai Q, Li C, Shao Z. The status of the species Hyphomonas rosenbergii Weiner et al. 2000. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:321 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Branquinho R, Klein G, Kämpfer P, Peixe LV. The status of the species Bacillus aerophilus and Bacillus stratosphericus. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:1101 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dunlap CA. The status of the species Bacillus aerius. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2341 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu Y, Ramesh Kumar N, Lai Q, Du J, Dobritsa AP et al. Identification of strains Bacillus aerophilus MTCC 7304T as Bacillus altitudinis and Bacillus stratosphericus MTCC 7305T as a Proteus sp. and the status of the species Bacillus aerius Shivaji et al. 2006. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:3228–3231 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Velázquez E, Flores-Félix JD, Sánchez-Juanes F, González-Buitrago JM, Peix A. The status of the genus Seliberia Aristovskaya and Parinkina 1963 (Approved Lists 1980) and the species Seliberia stellate Aristovskaya and Parinkina 1963 (Approved Lists 1980). Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2337–2340 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rameshkumar N. The status of the species Shewanella irciniae Lee et al. 2006. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2774 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kämpfer P, Doijad S, Chakraborty T, Glaeser SP. The status of the species Enterobacter siamensis Khunthongpan et al. 2014. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:524–525 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kimura ZI, Hoshino T, Murakami K. The status of the species Moorella thermoautotrophica Wiegel et al. 1981. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:3249–3251 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vázquez-Boland JA, Scortti M, Meijer WG. Conservation of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and rejection of Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kämpfer et al. 2014. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3572–3576 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Balish M, Bertaccini A, Blanchard A, Brown D, Browning G et al. Recommended rejection of the names Malacoplasma gen. nov., Mesomycoplasma gen. nov., Metamycoplasma gen. nov., Metamycoplasmataceae fam. nov., Mycoplasmoidaceae fam. nov., Mycoplasmoidales ord. nov., Mycoplasmoides gen. nov., Mycoplasmopsis gen. nov. [Gupta, Sawnani, Adeolu, Alnajar and Oren 2018] and all proposed species comb. nov. placed therein. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3650–3653 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ribeiro TG, Rocha J, Ksiezarek M, Perovic SU, Grosso F et al. The status of the species Lactobacillus fornicalis Dicks et al. 2000. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3953–3954 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Glaeser SP, Pulami D, Blom J, Eisenberg T, Goesmann A et al. The status of the genus Prolinoborus (Pot et al. 1992) and the species Prolinoborus fasciculus (Pot et al. 1992). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5165–5171 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Margos G, Castillo-Ramirez S, Cutler S, Dessau RB, Eikeland R et al. Rejection of the name Borreliella and all proposed species comb. nov. placed therein. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3577–3581 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tindall BJ. What ever happened to Thermomicrobium fosteri Phillips and Perry 1976?. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1065–1067 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Yassin AF, Spröer C, Pukall R, Schumann P. The status of the species Actinobaculum massiliense (Greub and Raoult 2006). Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:1102–1103 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Farmer III JJ, Holmes B. Conservation of the name Aeromonas eucrenophila over the name Aeromonas punctata for the organism based on type stain NCMB 74T and universally defined as ‘Aeromonas DNA hybridization group 6’. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2158–2162 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Skerman VBD, McGowan V, Sneath PHA. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Oren A, Arahal DR, Göker M, Moore ERB, Rossello-Mora R et al. n.d. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes – Prokaryotic Code (2022 Revision). Int J Syst Evol Microbiolin press
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tindall BJ. Names at the rank of class, subclass and order, their typification and current status: Supplementary information to Opinion 79. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3599–3602 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Dobritsa AP, Kutumbaka KK, Samadpour M. Reclassification of Eubacterium combesii and discrepancies in the nomenclature of botulinum neurotoxin-producing clostridia: Challenging Opinion 69. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:3068–3075 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tindall BJ. Updating Rule 15 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2766–2768 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Judicial Commission Opinion 69. Rejection of Clostridium putrificum and conservation of Clostridium botulinum and Clostridium sporogenes . Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:339 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Judicial Commission Opinion 67. Rejection of the name Citrobacter diversus Werkman and Gillen 1932. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1993; 43:392 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Oren A, Arahal DR, Rosselló-Móra R, Sutcliffe IC, Moore ERB. Public discussion on a proposed revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:4918 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Meier-Kolthoff JP, Carbasse JS, Peinado-Olarte RL, Göker M. TYGS and LPSN: a database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res 2022; 50:D801–D807 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Judicial Commission Opinion 54: Rejection of the species name Pseudomonas denitrificans (Christensen) Bergey et al. 1923: Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 32:466 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Judicial Commission Opinion 55: Rejection of the species name Mycobacterium aquae Jenkins et al. 1972: Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 32:467
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Tindall BJ. On the valid publication of names and combinations. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:3226–3227 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Euzéby JP. Validation List no. 148. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:2549–2554 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Euzéby JP. Notification that new names and new combinations have appeared in volume 58, part 1, of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:747–748 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Oren A, Garrity GM, Spring S, Onrust L, Petzoldt D et al. Valid publication of the names Caecibacterium and Caecibacterium sporoformans . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:452–453 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Tindall BJ. On the nomenclatural types of Methylothermus thermalis Tsubota et al. 2005, Methylothermus Tsubota et al. 2005 and Methylothermaceae Hirayama et al. 2014, their status under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and valid publication of the names Methylothermus gen. nov., Methylothermus subterraneus Hirayama et al. and Methylothermaceae Hirayama et al . Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:1890–1891 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Dellaglio F, Klein G. Rejection of Lactobacillus panis (Wiese et al. 1996). Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1997; 47:910 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tindall BJ. The properties given at the time of publication for the designated type strain of Leifsonia rubra Reddy et al. 2003, CMS 76r, do not correspond with those of MTCC 4210, DSM 15304, CIP 107783 and JCM 12471 that are deposited as representing the type strain: Opinion 96. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3593–3594 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. An SY, Yokota A. The status of the species Leifsonia rubra Reddy et al. 2003. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:1163 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Imhoff JF. Phylogenetic taxonomy of the family Chlorobiaceae on the basis of 16S rRNA and fmo (Fenna-Matthews-Olson protein) gene sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:941–951 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Oren A, Garrity GM. Valid publication of new names and new combinations effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5260
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tindall BJ. The relationship of validly published names to legitimate and illegitimate names in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:4905–4906 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tindall BJ. 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. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3590–3592 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Margos G, Wormser GP, Schwartz I, Markowicz M, Henningsson AJ et al. Evidence of taxonomic bias in public databases: the example of the genus Borrelia . Ticks Tick Borne Dis 2022; 13:101994 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Göker M. What can genome analysis offer for bacteria?. In Bridge P, Smith D, Stackebrandt E. eds Trends in the Systematics of Bacteria and Fungi Wallingford: CAB International; 2021 pp 255–281
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Tindall BJ. The combinations Lysobacter enzymogenes subsp. enzymogenes Christensen and Cook 1978, L. enzymogenes subsp. cookii Christensen 1978 and Streptococcus casseliflavus (Mundt and Graham 1968) Vaughan et al. 1979 were in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria at the time of publication in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, but are not to be considered to be included on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Opinion 95: Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3920–3921 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tindall BJ. The subgenus names Moraxella and Branhamella (in the genus Moraxella) are not in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria and are therefore not validly published: Supplementary information to Opinion 83. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3595–3596 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Judicial Commission Opinion 58: Confirmation of the types in the Approved Lists as nomenclatural types including recognition of Nocardia asteroides (Eppinger 1891) Blanchard 1896 and Pasteurella multocida (Lehmann and Neumann 1899) Rosenbusch and Merchant 1939 as the respective type species of the genera Nocardia and Pasteurella and rejection of the species name Pasteurella gallicida (Burrill 1883) Buchanan 1925: Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1985; 35:538 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Judicial Commission Status of strains that contravene Rules 27 (3) and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Opinion 81. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1755–1763 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Pfennig N, Trüper HG. New nomenclatural combinations in the phototrophic sulfur bacteria. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1971; 21:11–14 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Molisch H. Zwei neue Purpurbakterien mit Schwebekörperchen. Botanische Zeitung Abteilung I 1906; 64:223–232
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Oren A, Arahal DR, Rosselló-Móra R, Sutcliffe IC, Moore ERB. Emendation of General Consideration 5 and Rules 18a, 24a and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to resolve the status of the Cyanobacteria in the prokaryotic nomenclature. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:4939 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Oren A. Three alternative proposals to emend the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to resolve the status of the Cyanobacteria in the prokaryotic nomenclature. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4406–4408 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Turland N, Wiersema J, Barrie F, Greuter W, Hawksworth D et al. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants Königstein im Taunus: Koeltz Botanical Books; 2018 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Euzéby JP. Proposal to amend Rule 61 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 revision). Int J Syst Bacteriol 1998; 48:611–612 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Oren A, Garrity GM, Schink B. Proposal to modify Rule 6, Rule 10a, and Rule 12c of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1452–1453 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Oren A, da Costa MS, Garrity GM, Rainey FA, Rosselló-Móra R et al. Proposal to include the rank of phylum in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:4284–4287 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Oren A, Garrity GM. The status of the Notes in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes: proposal to emend General Consideration 6. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:3305–3306 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Tindall BJ. The undesirable retroactive changes to Rule 8 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:4895–4896 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Whitman WB. Modest proposals to expand the type material for naming of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2108–2112 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Oren A. Proposal to modify Rule 10a and to delete Recommendation 10a(3) from the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:3683–3684 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Oren A, Chuvochina M, Schink B. The use of Greek and Latin prepositions and prefixes in compound names: proposed emendation of Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:1831–1832 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Tindall BJ. Names above the rank of genus; the radical approach. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:1833–1834 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tindall BJ. An analysis of the term ‘standing in nomenclature’, as used in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2166–2168 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Tindall BJ. Clarifying the definition and role of effective publication in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes with proposals to make changes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2602–2605 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tindall BJ. Rule 24b of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and regulating the priority of names and epithets considered to be associated with heterotypic synonyms. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:3980–3983 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Whitman WB, Sutcliffe IC, Rossello-Mora R. Proposal for changes in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes: granting priority to Candidatus names. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2174–2175 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Oren A, Schink B. Use of Greek in the prokaryotic nomenclature: proposal to change Principle 3, Recommendation 6, Rule 7, Rule 65 and Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3559–3560 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Oren A, Arahal DR, Rosselló-Móra R, Sutcliffe IC, Moore ERB. Preparing a revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:4598 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Nouioui I, Ghodhbane-Gtari F, Montero-Calasanz MDC, Göker M, Meier-Kolthoff JP et al. Proposal of a type strain for Frankia alni (Woronin 1866) Von Tubeuf 1895, emended description of Frankia alni, and recognition of Frankia casuarinae sp. nov. and Frankia elaeagni sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:5201–5210 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Judicial Commission The type species of the genus Salmonella Lignieres 1900 is Salmonella enterica (ex Kauffmann and Edwards 1952) Le Minor and Popoff 1987, with the type strain LT2T, and conservation of the epithet enterica in Salmonella enterica over all earlier epithets that may be applied to this species. Opinion 80. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:519–520 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 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 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Judicial Commission Replacement of strain NCTC 4175, since 1963 the neotype strain of Proteus vulgaris, with strain ATCC 29905 - Opinion 70. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1999; 49:1949 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Judicial Commission Strain NCIMB 13488 may serve as the type strain of Halorubrum trapanicum. Opinion 74. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:933 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Judicial Commission Rejection of the genus name Pelczaria with the species Pelczaria aurantia Poston 1994. Opinion 78. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:515 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Tindall BJ. The consequences of Bacillus axarquiensis Ruiz-García et al. 2005, Bacillus malacitensis Ruiz-García et al. 2005 and Brevibacterium halotolerans Delaporte and Sasson 1967 (Approved Lists 1980) being treated as heterotypic synonyms. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:175–176 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Tindall BJ. Marinobacterium iners (Iizuka and Komagata 1964) comb. nov. arising from the synonymy of Marinobacterium georgiense González et al. 1997 and Pseudomonas iners Iizuka and Komagata 1964 (Approved Lists 1980). Curr Microbiol 2019; 76:1128–1129 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Tindall BJ. Marinobacter nauticus (Baumann et al. 1972) comb. nov. arising from instances of synonymy and the incorrect interpretation of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Arch Microbiol 2020; 202:657–663 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Judicial Commission Paenibacillus durus (Collins et al. 1994, formerly Clostridium durum Smith and Cato 1974) has priority over Paenibacillus azotofixans (Seldin et al. 1984). Opinion 73. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:931 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Judicial Commission The type strain of Lactobacillus casei is ATCC 393, ATCC 334 cannot serve as the type because it represents a different taxon, the name Lactobacillus paracasei and its subspecies names are not rejected and the revival of the name ‘Lactobacillus zeae’ contravenes Rules 51b (1) and (2) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Opinion 82. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1764–1765 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Van Loghem JJ. The classification of the plague-bacillus. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1944; 10:15–16 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Bercovier H, Mollaret HH, Alonso JM, Brault J, Fanning GR et al. Intra- and interspecies relatedness of Yersinia pestis by DNA hybridization and its relationship to Yersinia pseudotuberculosis . Curr Microbiol 1980; 4:225–229 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Associate Editor Validation of the publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSB. List No. 7. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1981; 31:382–383 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Judicial Commission Opinion 60: rejection of the name Yersinia pseudotuberculosis subsp. pestis (van Loghem) Bercovier et al. 1981 and conservation of the name Yersinia pestis (Lehmann and Neumann) van Loghem 1944 for the plague bacillus: Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1985; 35:540 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Judicial Commission Opinion 55. Rejection of the species name Mycobacterium aquae Jenkins et al 1972. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 1982:32–467 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Judicial Commission Opinion 56. Rejection of the species name Peptococcus anaerobius (Hamm) Douglas 1957. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 32:468 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Tindall BJ. The genus name Methanothrix Huser et al. 1983 and the species combination Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 do not contravene Rule 31a and are not to be considered as rejected names, the genus name Methanosaeta Patel and Sprott 1990 refers to the same taxon as Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 and the species combination Methanothrix thermophila Kamagata et al. 1992 is rejected: Supplementary information to Opinion 75. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3597–3598 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Judicial Commission Rejection of the genus name Methanothrix with the species Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 and transfer of Methanothrix thermophila Kamagata et al. 1992 to the genus Methanosaeta as Methanosaeta thermophila comb. nov. Opinion 75. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1753–1754 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Tindall BJ. The status of names whose nomenclatural types are based on strains deposited solely for patent purposes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2616–2620 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Tindall BJ. Clarification of access regulations to genetic resources that are subject to the sovereign rights of sovereign states and the deposit of nomenclatural types under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:317–320 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tindall BJ. Confirmation of deposit, but confirmation of what?. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1785–1787 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Judicial Commission Strain DSM 6035 is the type strain of Lactobacillus panis (Wiese et al. 1996). Opinion 72. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:929 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Judicial Commission Opinion 63: Rejection of the type species Methanosarcina methanica (Approved Lists, 1980) and conservation of the genus Methanosarcina (Approved Lists, 1980) emend. Mah and Kuhn 1984 with Methanosarcina barkeri (Approved Lists, 1980) as the type species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1986; 36:492 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Judicial Commission Opinion 59: Designation of NCIB 11664 in place of ATCC 23767 (NCIB 4112) as the type strain of Acetobacter aceti subsp. xylinum (Brown 1886) De Ley and Frateur 1974. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1985; 35:539 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Judicial Commission Opinion 64: Designation of strain MF (DSM 1535) in place of strain M.o.H. (DSM 863) as the type strain of Methanobacterium formicicum Schnellen 1947, and designation of strain M.o.H. (DSM 863) as the type strain of Methanobacterium bryantii (Balch and Wolfe in Balch, Fox, Magrum, Woese, and Wolfe 1979, 284) Boone 1987, 173. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1992; 42:654 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Judicial Commission Opinion 65: Designation of strain VPI D 19B-28 (ATCC 35185) in place of strain VPI 10068 (ATCC 33150) as the type strain of Selenomonas sputigena (Flügge 1886) Boskamp 1922. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1992; 42:655 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Judicial Commission Opinion 66: Designation of strain NS 51 (NCTC 12261) in place of strain NCTC 3165 as the type strain of Streptococcus mitis Andrewes and Horder 1906. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1993; 43:391 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Judicial Commission Opinion 68: Designation of strain B213c (DSM 20284) in place of strain NCDO 1859 as the type strain of Pediococcus acidilactici Lindner 1887. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1996; 46:835 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Judicial Commission Strain NBRC (formerly IFO) 3782 is the type strain of Streptomyces rameus Shibata 1959. Opinion 76. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:511 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Judicial Commission Corynebacterium ilicis is typified by ICMP 2608 =ICPB CI144, Arthrobacter ilicis is typified by DSM 20138 =ATCC 14264 =NCPPB 1228 and the two are not homotypic synonyms, and clarification of the authorship of these two species. Opinion 87. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1976–1978 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Tindall BJ. ATCC 43642 replaces ATCC 23581 as the type strain of Leptospira interrogans (Stimson 1907) Wenyon 1926. Opinion 91. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3584–3585 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Judicial Commission Opinion 61: Rejection of the type strain of Pasteuria ramosa (ATCC 27377) and conservation of the species Pasteuria ramosa Metchnikoff 1888 on the basis of the type descriptive material. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1986; 36:119 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Tindall BJ. The designated type strain of Pseudomonas halophila Fendrich 1989 is DSM 3051, the designated type strain of Halovibrio variabilis Fendrich 1989 is DSM 3050, the new name Halomonas utahensis (Fendrich 1989) Sorokin and Tindall 2006 is created for the species represented by DSM 3051 when treated as a member of the genus Halomonas, the combination Halomonas variabilis (Fendrich 1989) Dobson and Franzmann 1996 is rejected, and the combination Halovibrio denitrificans Sorokin et al. 2006 is validly published with an emendation of the description of the genus Halovibrio Fendrich 1989 emend. Sorokin et al. 2006. Opinion 93. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3588–3589 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Tindall BJ. The status of the name Lactobacillus rogosae Holdeman and Moore 1974. Opinion 88. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3578–3579 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Judicial Commission Opinion 53: Rejection of the species name Mycobacterium marianum Penso 1953. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1978; 28:334 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Margos G, Gofton A, Wibberg D, Dangel A, Marosevic D et al. The genus Borrelia reloaded. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0208432 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Tortoli E, Brown-Elliott BA, Chalmers JD, Cirillo DM, Daley CL et al. Same meat, different gravy: ignore the new names of mycobacteria. Eur Respir J 2019; 54:1900795 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  133. On SLW, Miller WG, Biggs PJ, Cornelius AJ, Vandamme P. A critical rebuttal of the proposed division of the genus Arcobacter into six genera using comparative genomic, phylogenetic, and phenotypic criteria. Syst Appl Microbiol 2020; 43:126108 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, Hotton CL, Kannan S et al. NCBI taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database 2020; 2020:baaa062 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Maiden MFJ, Cohee P, Tanner ACR. Proposal to conserve the adjectival form of the specific epithet in the reclassification of Bacteroides forsythus Tanner et al. 1986 to the genus Tannerella Sakamoto et al. 2002 as Tannerella forsythia corrig., gen. nov., comb. nov. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:2111–2112 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Lambert DH, Loria R, Labeda DP, Saddler GS. Recommendation for the conservation of the name Streptomyces scabies. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:2447–2448 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Oren A, Garrity GM, Schink B. Proposal to change the name Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012, 1947 to Rhodoligotrophus. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:3545 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Oren A. Proposal to correct the generic name Flaviaesturariibacter Kang, Chun, Seo, Kim and Jahng 2015, 2212 to Flavaestuariibacter. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:3686 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Oren A. Correction of the name Amycolatopsis albidoflavus to Amycolatopsis albidiflava corrig. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:4284 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Euzéby JP, Tindall BJ. Necessary corrections to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names according to Rule 40d (formerly Rule 46). Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:2321–2322 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Edwards J, Baque E, Tang J. Proposal to acknowledge Beijerinck as the original author of the species Pantoea agglomerans. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:2437 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Holmes B, Farmer III JJ. 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). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2155–2157 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Cato EP, Holdeman LV, Moore WEC. Designation of Eubacterium limosum (Eggerth) Prévot as the type species of Eubacterium. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1981; 31:209–210 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Sneath PHA. Status of nomenclatural types in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names 1980. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1982; 32:459–460 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Mah RA, Kuhn DA. Transfer of the type species of the genus Methanococcus to the genus Methanosarcina, naming it Methanosarcina mazei (Barker 1936) comb. nov. et emend. and conservation of the genus Methanococcus (Approved Lists 1980) with Methanococcus vannielii (Approved Lists 1980) as the type species: Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1984; 34:263–265 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Mah RA, Kuhn DA. Rejection of the type species of Methanosarcina methanica (Approved Lists 1980), conservation of the genus Methanosarcina with Methanosarcina barkeri (Approved Lists 1980) as the type species, and emendation of the genus Methanosarcina. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1984; 34:266–267 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Tindall BJ. What is the type species of the genus Paenibacillus? Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:939–940 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Neimark H, Peters W, Robinson BL, Stewart LB. Phylogenetic analysis and description of Eperythrozoon coccoides, proposal to transfer to the genus Mycoplasma as Mycoplasma coccoides comb. nov. and Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:1385–1391 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Young JM, Pennycook SR, Watson DRW. Proposal that Agrobacterium radiobacter has priority over Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:491–493 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Oren A, Garrity GM. The correct name of the type species of the genus Methanocorpusculum. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:2013–2014 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Boden R, Oren A. Proposal to designate Methylothermus subterraneus Hirayama et al. 2011 as the type species of the genus Methylothermus. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:3685 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Euzéby JP, Tindall BJ. Nomenclatural type of orders: corrections necessary according to Rules 15 and 21a of the Bacteriological Code (1990 Revision), and designation of appropriate nomenclatural types of classes and subclasses. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:725–727 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Oren A. Proposal to designate the order Actinomycetales Buchanan 1917, 162 (Approved Lists 1980) as the nomenclatural type of the class Actinobacteria. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2017; 67:3687–3688 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Tao TS, Yue YY, Fang CX. Irregularities in the validation of the genus Thermodesulfobacterium and its species. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1996; 46:622 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Euzéby JP, Tindall BJ. A replacement name of the specific epithet aurantiaca in Micromonospora aurantiaca Sveshnikova et al. 1969 (Approved Lists 1980) and a proposal to treat the combination Micromonospora aurantiaca Sveshnikova et al. 1969 as a rejected name. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:1905–1906 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Oren A, Parte A, Garrity GM. Implementation of Rule 8 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes for the renaming of classes. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:4296–4298 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Judicial Commission Opinion 57: Designation of Eubacterium limosum (Eggerth) Prévot 1938 as the type species of Eubacterium . Int J Syst Bacteriol 1983; 33:434 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Judicial Commission Opinion 62: Transfer of the type species of the genus Methanococcus to the genus Methanosarcina as Methanosarcina mazei (Barker 1936) comb. nov. et emend. Mah and Kuhn 1984 and conservation of the genus Methanococcus (Approved Lists, 1980) emend. Mah and Kuhn 1984 with Methanococcus vannielii (Approved Lists, 1980) as the type species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1986; 36:491 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Judicial Commission Valid publication of the genus name Thermodesulfobacterium and the species names Thermodesulfobacterium commune (Zeikus et al. 1983) and Thermodesulfobacterium thermophilum (ex Desulfovibrio thermophilus Rozanova and Khudyakova 1974). Opinion 71. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2003; 53:927 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Judicial Commission The type species of the genus Paenibacillus Ash et al. 1994 is Paenibacillus polymyxa. Opinion 77. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:513 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Judicial Commission The nomenclatural types of the orders Acholeplasmatales, Halanaerobiales, Halobacteriales, Methanobacteriales, Methanococcales, Methanomicrobiales, Planctomycetales, Prochlorales, Sulfolobales, Thermococcales, Thermoproteales and Verrucomicrobiales are the genera Acholeplasma, Halanaerobium, Halobacterium, Methanobacterium, Methanococcus, Methanomicrobium, Planctomyces, Prochloron, Sulfolobus, Thermococcus, Thermoproteus and Verrucomicrobium, respectively. Opinion 79. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:517–518 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Judicial Commission The adjectival form of the epithet in Tannerella forsythensis Sakamoto et al. 2002 is to be retained and the name is to be corrected to Tannerella forsythia Sakamoto et al. 2002. Opinion 85. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1974 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Judicial Commission Necessary corrections to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names according to Rule 40d (formerly Rule 46). Opinion 86. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1975 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Tindall BJ. The epithet aurantiaca in Micromonospora aurantiaca Sveshnikova et al. 1969 (Approved Lists 1980) is illegitimate and requires a replacement epithet. Opinion 89. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3580–3581 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Tindall BJ. The combination Enterobacter agglomerans is to be cited as Enterobacter agglomerans (Beijerinck 1888) Ewing and Fife 1972 and the combination Pantoea agglomerans is to be cited as Pantoea agglomerans (Beijerinck 1888) Gavini et al. 1989. Opinion 90. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3582–3583 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Tindall BJ. The Request for an Opinion that the current use of the genus name Mycoplasma be maintained and Mycoplasma coccoides be considered a legitimate name is denied. Opinion 92. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:3586–3587 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  167. MacAdoo TO. Nomenclatural literacy. In Goodfellow M, O’Donnell AG. eds Handbook of New Bacterial Systematics London: Academic Press; 1993 pp 339–358
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Trüper HG. How to name a prokaryote? Etymological considerations, proposals and practical advice in prokaryote nomenclature. FEMS Microbiol Rev 1999; 23:231–249 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  169. Oren A, Vandamme P, Schink B. Notes on the use of Greek word roots in genus and species names of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:2129–2140 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  170. Oren A, Garrity GM. Proposal to modify the Note to Rule 61 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2016; 66:3307–3309 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  171. De Vos P, Trüper HG. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology IXth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology. Minutes of the meetings, 14, 15 and 18 August 1999, Sydney, Australia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2000; 50:2239–2244 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Judicial Commission The genus name Sinorhizobium Chen et al. 1988 is a later synonym of Ensifer Casida 1982 and is not conserved over the latter genus name, and the species name ‘Sinorhizobium adhaerens’ is not validly published. Opinion 84. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:1973 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  173. List Editor Validation List no. 85. Validation of publication of new names and new combinations previously effectively published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002; 52:685–690 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Euzéby JP. Validation List no. 111. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2006; 56:2025–2027 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Oren A, Garrity GM. Validation List no. 159. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:2927–2929 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Oren A, Garrity GM. Validation List no. 163. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:1105–1111 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Oren A, Garrity GM. Validation List no. 184. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:3379–3393 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  178. List Editor Notification that new names and new combinations have appeared in volume 50, part 2, of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:795–796 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification that new names of prokaryotes, new combinations and new taxonomic opinions have appeared in volume 65, part 7, of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2015; 65:3233–3234 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  180. Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification that new names of prokaryotes, new combinations, and new taxonomic opinions have appeared in volume 69, part 5 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:2177–2178 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  181. Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification that new names of prokaryotes, new combinations, and new taxonomic opinions have appeared in volume 70, part 2 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2967–2971 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  182. Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification that new names of prokaryotes, new combinations, and new taxonomic opinions have appeared in volume 70, part 11 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:4645 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification that new names of prokaryotes, new combinations, and new taxonomic opinions have appeared in volume 71, part 10 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2022; 72:5165 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  184. Sutcliffe IC, Dijkshoorn L, Whitman WB. Minutes of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes online discussion on the proposed use of gene sequences as type for naming of prokaryotes, and outcome of vote. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4416–4417 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  185. Oren A, Arahal DR, Rosselló-Móra R, Sutcliffe IC, Moore ERB. Emendation of Rules 5b, 8, 15 and 22 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to include the rank of phylum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021; 71:4851 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005782
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005782
Loading

Data & Media 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