1887

Abstract

The prokaryotic generic name Hauser 1885 (Approved Lists 1980) is a later homonym of the protozoan genus name Müller, 1786 and therefore should be considered illegitimate and in need of replacement according to Rules 51b(4) and 54 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. However, it would be unwelcome for medical and veterinary community to propose by anyone any replacement name and discontinue the current usage. To prevent from any unfavourable replacement, conservation of the illegitimate prokaryotic generic name Hauser 1885 (Approved Lists 1980) according to Rules 23a Note 4 and 56b is needed, and therefore, a request for conservation by the Judicial Commission over its earlier protozoan homonym is made here by the author, with Judicial Opinions 9 and 12 serving as precedents.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006434
2024-06-26
2024-07-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/74/6/ijsem006434.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006434&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Hauser G. Über Fäulnissbacterien und deren Beziehungen zur Septicämie: ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Speltpilze. In Über Fäulnissbakterien und Deren Beziehungen zur Septicämie. Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Spaltpilzeüber fäulnissbakterien und Deren Beziehungen zur Septicämie. Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Spaltpilze Leipzig: Vogel; 1885 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Sneath PHA, McGowan V, Skerman VBD. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1980; 30:225–420 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Laurenti JN. Specimen Medicum, Exhibens Synopsin Reptilium Emendatum Cum Experimentatis Circa Venena et Antiodota Reptilium Austriacorum. Vienna; 1768 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4210563
  4. Müller OF. Animalcula infusoria fluvia tilia et marina, quae detexit, systematice descripsit et ad vivum delineari curavit. Hauniae, Typis Nicolai Mölleri; 1786 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53299703
  5. Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International code of nomenclature of prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:S1–S111 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Oren A, Arahal DR, Göker M, Moore ERB, Rossello-Mora R et al. International code of nomenclature of prokaryotes. Prokaryotic code (2022 revision). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73:5585 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Goricki S, Trontelj P. Structure and evolution of the mitochondrial control region and flanking sequences in the European cave salamander Proteus anguinus. Gene 2006; 378:31–41 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Aljančič G. History of research on Proteus anguinus Laurenti 1768 in Slovenia. Folia Biol Geol 2019; 60:39 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kostanjšek R, Diderichsen B, Recknagel H, Gunde-Cimerman N, Gostinčar C et al. Toward the massive genome of Proteus anguinus-illuminating longevity, regeneration, convergent evolution, and metabolic disorders. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2022; 1507:5–11 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tesařová M, Mancini L, Mauri E, Aljančič G, Năpăruş-Aljančič M et al. Living in darkness: exploring adaptation of Proteus anguinus in 3 dimensions by X-ray imaging. Gigascience 2022; 11:giac030 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Stiles CW, Boeck WC. The nomenclatural status of certain protozoa parasitic in man. In: Studies on various internal parasites (especially Amoebae) of man. United States Public Health Service. Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin No.133; 1923; 92-120 https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=mupZI6Mjt20C&hl=zh-TW&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q&f=false
  12. Bory de Saint-Vincent JBGM. Amibe. In: Dictionnaire classique d’histoire naturelle par Messieurs Audouin, Isid. Bourdon, Ad. Brongniart, De Candolle, Daudebard de Férusac, A. Desmoulins, Drapiez, Edwards, Flourens, Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, A. De Jussieu, Kunth, G. de Lafosse, Lamouroux, Latreille, Lucas fils, Presle-Duplessis, C. Prévost, A. Richard, Thiébaut de Berneaud, et Bory de Saint-Vincent. Ouvrage dirigé par ce dernier collaborateur, et dans lequel on A ajouté, pour le porter au niveau de la science, un grand nombre de mots qui n’avaient pu faire partie de la plupart des Dictionnaires antérieurs. Vol. 1. Paris, Rey et Gravier, Baudoin frères; 1822 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25676153
  13. Ehrenberg CG. Organisation, systematik und geographisches verhältniss der infusionsthierchen: Zwei vorträge, in der Akademie der wissenschaften zu Berlin gehalten in den jahren 1828 und 1830. In: Druckerei der Königlichen akademie der wissenschaften; 1832 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/55148125
  14. Baldock BM, Rogerson A, Berger J. A new species of fresh-water amoeba: Amoeba algonquinensis n. sp. (Gymnamoebia: Amoebidae). Trans Am Micros Soc 1983; 102:113–121 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Friz CT. Taxonomic analyses of seven species of family Amoebidae by isozymic characterization of electrophoretic patterns and the descriptions of a new genus and a new species: Metamoeba n. gen. Amoeba amazonas n. sp. Archiv für Protistenkunde 1992; 142:29–40 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodkov AV, Berdieva MA, Podlipaeva YI, Demin SY. The chromatin extrusion phenomenon in amoeba proteus cell cycle. J Eukaryot Microbiol 2020; 67:203–208 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Minelli A. Zoological nomenclature in the digital era. Front Zool 2013; 10:4 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ride W, Cogger HG, Dupuis C, Kraus O, Minelli A et al. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature; 1999
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Tindall BJ. A note on the genus name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 and its homonyms. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1062–1064 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodfellow M, Oren A, Sangal V, Sutcliffe IC. Is the bacterial genus name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 illegitimate? Request for an opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2024; 74:6251 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sellaturay SV, Nair R, Dickinson IK, Sriprasad S. Proteus: Mythology to modern times. Indian J Urol 2012; 28:388–391 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Wang J-T, Chen P-C, Chang S-C, Shiau Y-R, Wang H-Y et al. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Proteus mirabilis: a longitudinal nationwide study from the Taiwan surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (TSAR) program. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14:486 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Drzewiecka D. Significance and roles of Proteus spp. bacteria in natural environments. Microb Ecol 2016; 72:741–758 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamilton AL, Kamm MA, Ng SC, Morrison M. Proteus spp. as putative gastrointestinal pathogens. Clin Microbiol Rev 2018; 31:e00085-17 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Marques C, Belas A, Menezes J, Moreira da Silva J, Cavaco-Silva P et al. Human and companion animal Proteus mirabilis sharing. Microbiol Res 2021; 13:38–48 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Facciolà A, Gioffrè ME, Chiera D, Ferlazzo M, Virgà A et al. Evaluation of antibiotic resistance in Proteus spp: a growing trend that worries public health. Results of 10 years of analysis. New Microbiol 2022; 45:269–277 [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu L, Dong Z, Ai S, Chen S, Dong M et al. Virulence-related factors and antimicrobial resistance in Proteus mirabilis isolated from domestic and stray dogs. Front Microbiol 2023; 14:1141418 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hafiz TA, Alghamdi GS, Alkudmani ZS, Alyami AS, AlMazyed A et al. Multidrug-resistant Proteus mirabilis infections and clinical outcome at Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Infect Drug Resist 2024; 17:571–581 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Arahal DR, Busse H-J, Bull CT, Christensen H, Chuvochina M et al. Guidelines for interpreting the code and for writing a request for an opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2023; 73:5782 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Judicial Commission Opinions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Int Bullet Bacteriol Nomenclat Taxon 1954; 4:141–158 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.006434
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