International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes

Clarifying the limitations on Rule 18a and Rule 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes

“…The current text appears not to be perfect as it appears to be possible to misinterpret the wording by implying that Rule 18a (2) overrides Rule 18a (1) retroactively, which has never been the intention of the changes proposed by Tindall [3]. Consequently, the following changes to the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes [6] that supersedes the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria [1] are proposed, that also include emphasis on the role of type strains rather than just strains as well as clarification of the quotation of culture collection numbers. Changes have been highlighted in bold.…”

A plea for linguistic accuracy – also for Candidatus taxa

“…The rank of Candidatus, as proposed by Murray and Schleifer [2] and Murray and Stackebrandt [3], is a provisional status for putative taxa that cannot yet be published and named according to the requirements of the ICNP [4] because they cannot yet be sustained in pure culture. The description of such Candidatus taxa is based on genomic information (from 16S rRNA gene sequences to complete genomes) as well as structural, metabolic, reproductive and other modes of identification of the taxa in their natural environment.…”

Proposal to correct the generic name Flaviaesturariibacter Kang, Chun, Seo, Kim and Jahng 2015, 2212 to Flavaestuariibacter. Request for an Opinion

“…Moreover, according to Appendix 9, section A(1)c, of the Prokaryotic Code [3], a connecting vowel must be dropped when the following word element starts with a vowel. Correct is therefore Flavaestuariibacter.…”

“…65, part 7, of the IJSEM [4] listed the generic name as Flaviaestuariibacter, but no explanation was provided for the change in spelling compared to the original publication [1]. Based on Rule 27 of the Code [3], such Notification Lists have no formal status in prokaryote nomenclature except to allow for orthographic corrections to be made [5]. In cases in which a name does not conform to the requirements laid down in the Code so that the name cannot be validly published, it is possible to indicate that a name has not met these criteria by adding a footnote to the Notification Lists [6].…”

“…According to Rule 58 of the Prokaryotic Code [3], when there is doubt about different spellings of the same name or epithet, … the question should be referred to the Judicial Commission, which may issue an Opinion as seems fit. If one of the spellings is preferred by the Judicial Commission, this spelling should be used by succeeding authors.…”