There are surely scientific, genetic or ecological arguments which show that differences exist between the relapsing fever (RF) spirochaetes and the Lyme borreliosis (LB) group of spirochaetes, both of which belong to the genus Borrelia. In a recent publication, Adeolu and Gupta [1] proposed dividing the genus Borrelia into two genera on the basis of genetic differences revealed by comparative genomics. The new genus name for the LB group of spirochaetes, Borreliella, has subsequently been entered in the GenBank database for some species of the group and in a validation list (List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published) [2]. However, rapidly expanding scientific knowledge and considerable conflicting evidence combined with the adverse consequences of splitting the genus Borrelia make such a drastic step somewhat premature. In our opinion, the basis of this division rests on preliminary evidence and should be rescinded for the following reasons:(1) The proposed split of the genus rests on differences in conserved signature indels (CSI) and conserved signature proteins (CSP) between LB and RF spirochaetes. A major omission in the study published by Adeolu and Gupta [1] is the exclusion of a Borrelia clade containing RF-like species that utilize hard ticks as vectors and reptiles as reservoir hosts [3,4].To identify proteins that are uniquely present in various groups of Borrelia, BLAST searches [5] were performed by Adeolu and Gupta [1] using each protein in the genomes of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.) B31 T and Borrelia recurrentis A1 as queries. Out of 1041 and 1390 protein coding genes (i.e. the number of proteins reported in GenBank accession numbers NC_011244 and NC_001318) present in B. recurrentis A1 and B. burgdorferi s.s. B31 T , respectively, 15 CSI (seven for LB, eight for RF) and 25 CSP (21 for LB, four for RF) were found to be unique for the respective groups. However, two of the four CSPs that are apparently unique for the RF group species are not found in all members of this group and therefore do not represent true signature proteins. Hence, just two CSPs and eight CSIs are unique to the RF group.