Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes: Minutes of the Meeting on 3 March 2022

Göker, Markus

doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.005395

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for orthography [86,92,[167][168][169], a useful guideline appeared to be this one: the higher the effort needed to figure out that a spelling is wrong in the first place, the lower the need for an orthographical correction; and vice versa. For instance, if one needs to look up an appendix of the ICNP or even a Latin or Greek dictionary to figure out that a spelling is wrong, an orthographical correction is probably unnecessary; but if one just needs to look up a single paper or a single Rule of the ICNP and only a handful of taxon names, an orthographical correction may better be conducted [8]. This was an attempt at a balanced approach of the Judicial Commission to determine which orthographical corrections should be conducted that was in line with the wording of Rule 61 that was in effect at that time.…”

Section: Orthographical Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the ICNP, General Consideration 6(4), Rule 3 and Rule 4 form the basis of actions of the Judicial Commission in general while other Rules provide for specific tasks of Judicial Opinions. The first Opinion dates back to 1951 [3]; Opinions 97-127 were published during the last 3 years [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, misinterpretations of the ICNP are common and tend to spread [6,8,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22], a process regrettably now amplified by social media. Accordingly, a variety of Requests recently encountered by the Judicial Commission indicated difficulties regarding the interpretation of the ICNP, particularly those that called for the rejection of names or epithets or for a corresponding clarification of the status of a name [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Guidelines for interpreting the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and for preparing a Request for an Opinion

Arahal

Bull

Busse

et al. 2023

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 nomina rejicienda, 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.

show abstract

Section: Orthographical Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guidelines for interpreting the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and for preparing a Request for an Opinion

Arahal

Bull

Busse

et al. 2023

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Judicial Commission emphasizes that the rejection of those names was not due to conflicting taxonomic views. The ICNP does not rule on taxonomy [2, 3], and neither does the commission [4, 5, 27, 28]. For this reason, the probably reasonable assumption that most contemporary taxonomists would not agree with the classification proposed by Gibbons and Murray [29] or the one proposed by Murray [26] must not be used to argue for the rejection of the names included in these classifications.…”

Section: Legitimacy and Rejection Of Names Of Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Opinion 128

Arahal

Bull

Chuvochina

et al. 2023

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial Opinion 128 addresses nomenclatural issues related to the names of classes validly published under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. It is confirmed that the common ending -proteobacteria of some class names is not indicative of a joint taxonomic or phylogenetic placement; that the nomenclatural type of Mollicutes Edward and Freundt 1967 (Approved Lists 1980) is Mycoplasmatales Freundt 1955 (Approved Lists 1980); and that the placement of a name on the list of rejected names does not imply that another name with the same spelling but a distinct rank is also placed on that list. The names at the rank of class Anoxyphotobacteria (Gibbons and Murray 1978) Murray 1988, Archaeobacteria Murray 1988, Bacteria Haeckel 1894 (Approved Lists 1980), Firmibacteria Murray 1988, Microtatobiotes Philip 1956 (Approved Lists 1980), Oxyphotobacteria (ex Gibbons and Murray 1978) Murray 1988, Photobacteria Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980), Proteobacteria Stackebrandt et al. 1988, Schizomycetes Nägeli 1857 (Approved Lists 1980), Scotobacteria Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) are placed on the list of rejected names. For three common nominative singular suffixes of genus names their genitive singular and nominative plural forms are confirmed: -bacter (-bacteris, -bacteres); -fex (-ficis, -fices); and -genes (-genis, -genes). The class names Aquificae Reysenbach 2002, Chrysiogenetes Garrity and Holt 2002, Chthonomonadetes Lee et al. 2011, Gemmatimonadetes Zhang et al. 2003, Opitutae Choo et al. 2007 and Verrucomicrobiae Hedlund et al. 1998 are orthographically corrected to Aquificia, Chrysiogenia, Chthonomonadia, Gemmatimonadia, Opitutia and Verrucomicrobiia, respectively.

show abstract

Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes: Minutes of the Meeting on 3 March 2022

Abstract: The minutes of the online meeting of the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes that was held on 3 March 2022 per video conference are presented.

Cited by 2 publications

References 17 publications

Guidelines for interpreting the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and for preparing a Request for an Opinion

Guidelines for interpreting the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and for preparing a Request for an Opinion

Judicial Opinion 128

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About