- Volume 58, Issue 7, 2008

The taxonomic position of a lactic acid bacterium, strain L13T, isolated from senmaizuke, a Japanese traditional pickle, was studied. This strain was a heterofermentative, facultatively anaerobic, Gram-positive, non-spore-forming, non-motile, rod-shaped bacterium. It produced dl-lactic acid from glucose. Phylogenetic analysis of its 16S rRNA gene sequence and physiological and biochemical characteristics indicated that the strain was a member of the genus Lactobacillus. Based on 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity, strain L13T was closely related to Lactobacillus hammesii CIP 108387T (98.9 %) and Lactobacillus parabrevis ATCC 53295T (98.5 %). In addition, the rpoA gene sequence of strain L13T was closely related to those of L. hammesii CIP 108387T (92.2 %) and L. parabrevis ATCC 53295T (92.0 %). However, DNA–DNA hybridization of strain L13T with these two strains revealed that strain L13T represents a separate genomic species. The DNA G+C content of strain L13T was 46 mol% and the peptidoglycan was of the A4α l-Lys–d-Asp type. Thus, these data indicate that strain L13T represents a novel species of the genus Lactobacillus, for which the name Lactobacillus senmaizukei is proposed. The type strain is L13T (=NBRC 103853T=TISTR 1847T).

A Gram-positive and catalase-negative coccus that formed chains, designated strain FP48-3T, isolated from fermented sausage (‘mum’), was studied systematically. Strain FP48-3T was facultatively anaerobic and produced l-lactic acid from glucose. Straight-chain fatty acids C18 : 1 and C16 : 0 were the dominant components. The DNA G+C content of strain FP48-3T was 37.9 mol%. On the basis of 16S rRNA and RNA polymerase α-subunit (rpoA) gene sequence analysis, strain FP48-3T was closely related to Enterococcus hirae LMG 6399T, Enterococcus durans LMG 10746T and Enterococcus faecium LMG 11423T, with 99.3–99.6 and 95.1–96.9 % sequence similarities, respectively. Strain FP48-3T could be clearly distinguished from E. hirae LMG 6399T, E. durans LMG 10746T and E. faecium LMG 11423T by low DNA–DNA relatedness (≤14 %) and phenotypic characteristics. Therefore, this strain represents a novel species of the genus Enterococcus, for which the name Enterococcus thailandicus sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is FP48-3T (=KCTC 13134T=NBRC 101867T=NRIC 0107T=TISTR 933T=PCU 282T).

The Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes has decided to place the genus Methanothrix with the species Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 on the list of nomina rejicienda, based on the fact that it is not represented by an axenic culture and contravenes Rule 31a of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. The species Methanothrix thermophila is transferred to the genus Methanosaeta as Methanosaeta thermophila ( Kamagata et al. 1992 ) Boone and Kamagata 1998 comb. nov.

Based on a list of 205 names proposed in original articles in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology or cited in Validation Lists from January 2001 that are not in accordance with Rules 27(3) and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (the Code), the Judicial Commission rules that names contained in lists 2–4 are to be considered to be validly published and that deposit in more than one collection in different countries is documented. Names included in list 1 are only to be considered validly published if evidence is presented that the strains have been deposited in additional collections, as laid down by Rules 27 (3) and 30 of the Code.

The Judicial Commission affirms that typification of Lactobacillus casei is based on ATCC 393, that ATCC 334 is a member of a different taxon and that the publication rejecting the name Lactobacillus paracasei (and its included subspecies) together with the revival of the name ‘Lactobacillus zeae’ contravenes Rules 51b (1) and (2) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.

The Judicial Commission of the International Committee for Systematics of Prokaryotes rules that the following names should have been included on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, Moraxella (subgen. Branhamella Bøvre 1979), Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939), Moraxella (subgen. Branhamella Bøvre 1979) catarrhalis, Moraxella (subgen. Branhamella Bøvre 1979) caviae, Moraxella (subgen. Branhamella Bøvre 1979) ovis, Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939) atlantae, Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939) bovis, Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939) lacunata, Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939) nonliquefaciens, Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939) osloensis, Moraxella (subgen. Moraxella Lwoff 1939) phenylpyruvica. Proposals to alter Rule 34a were rejected.

Eubacterium rectale is one of the most abundant bacterial species recovered from human faeces. E. rectale ( Hauduroy et al. 1937 ) appears in the ‘List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature’, but it is noted that the originally proposed type strain, VPI 0989T, has been lost and its possible replacement by another strain (VPI 0990) from the same faecal sample has never been formally proposed. It is therefore proposed that strain A1-86 (=DSM 17629=NCIMB 14373), isolated from human adult faeces, be formally recognized as the neotype strain of Eubacterium rectale.

Opinion 75 issued by the Judicial Commission is based on an interpretation of the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (the Code) that failed to take into consideration changes made to the Code by the Judicial Commission prior to consideration of the original Request for an Opinion. Furthermore, closer examination of the Request indicates a number of contradictions that have been carried over into the published Opinion. The Judicial Commission is therefore requested to re-examine Opinion 75.

The Judicial Commission has ruled that subgenus names within the genus Moraxella should be considered to have been included on the Approved Lists, together with the corresponding species names within these subgenera. Closer examination of the facts, including the wording of the relevant passages in the Code and the original publication in which these names are included, together with information that has subsequently come to light, indicates that there is good cause to re-examine the facts on which this Opinion is based.

There is some degree of confusion surrounding Rule 15 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria and the fact that it appears to contradict the general principle of priority, which is central to codes of nomenclature. The present overview attempts to highlight the problem and also to provide a basis for discussion towards a solution.

Note 1 of Rule 24a of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria can be interpreted in an ambiguous fashion, because the wording is not sufficiently clear. It is proposed that the wording of this note be modified to clarify this point.