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

Oren, Aharon

doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.002256

“…A Request for an Opinion by Oren [65] called for the orthographical correction of the name Flaviaesturariibacter Kang et al . 2015 to Flavaestuariibacter .…”

Section: Opinion 118mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This indicates that the intended spelling was Flaviaestuariibacter derived from the Latin neuter noun aestuarium , which can, in contrast to aesturarium , be found in dictionaries, as stated by Oren [65]. However, the Judicial Commission could not confirm the claim in the Request for an Opinion [65] that the Notification List that included the name [67] already corrected the spelling to Flaviaestuariibacter ; instead it also used Flaviaesturariibacter .…”

Section: Opinion 118mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This indicates that the intended spelling was Flaviaestuariibacter derived from the Latin neuter noun aestuarium , which can, in contrast to aesturarium , be found in dictionaries, as stated by Oren [65]. However, the Judicial Commission could not confirm the claim in the Request for an Opinion [65] that the Notification List that included the name [67] already corrected the spelling to Flaviaestuariibacter ; instead it also used Flaviaesturariibacter . The Judicial Commissions agrees with Oren [65] that Appendix 9 section A(1c) of the ICNP indicates that in compound nouns a connecting vowel must be dropped when the following word element starts with a vowel [5] and that the orthographically correct spelling is Flavaestuariibacter .…”

Section: Opinion 118mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Judicial Opinions 112–122

Arahal

¹

,

Busse

²

,

Bull

³

et al. 2022

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Opinion 112 denies the request to place Seliberia Aristovskaya and Parinkina 1963 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names because the information provided is insufficient. For the same reason, Opinion 113 denies the request to reject Shewanella irciniae Lee et al. 2006 and Opinion 114 denies the request to reject the name Enterobacter siamensis Khunthongpan et al. 2014. Opinion 115 rejects the epithet of Moorella thermoautotrophica (Wiegel et al. 1981) Collins et al. 1994, which is regarded as a nomen confusum. To assess the consequences of Rule 8, Opinion 116 revisits names of taxa above the rank of genus which should comprise the stem of the name of a nomenclatural type and a category-specific ending but fail to do so. Such names should be orthographically corrected if the sole error is the inadvertent usage of an incorrect stem or be regarded as illegitimate if otherwise. The necessary corrections are made for a number of names. In Opinion 117, the request to designate Methylothermus subterraneus Hirayama et al. 2011 as the type species of the genus Methylothermus is denied because an equivalent action compatible with the Code was already conducted. In Opinion 118, the possible orthographical correction of the name Flaviaesturariibacter is treated, as are the analogous cases of Fredinandcohnia and Hydrogeniiclostidium . The genus names are corrected to Flaviaestuariibacter, Ferdinandcohnia and Hydrogeniiclostridium , respectively. Opinion 119 concludes that assigning Actinomycetales Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) as nomenclatural type of the class Actinobacteria Stackebrandt et al. 1997 would not render that name legitimate if Rule 8 remained retroactive. The request is granted but Actinomycetales is also assigned as type of Actinomycetes Krassilnikov 1949 (Approved Lists 1980). In Opinion 120, the possible orthographical correction of the name Amycolatopsis albidoflavus is treated. It is grammatically corrected to Amycolatopsis albidoflava. Six names which could according to Rule 61 be grammatically corrected by anyone are also corrected. Opinion 121 denies the request to revise Opinion 69 and notes that Opinion 69 does not have the undesirable consequences emphasized in the request. In Opinion 122, the request to reject various taxon names of Mollicutes proposed in 2018 is denied because it is based on misinterpretations of the Code, which are clarified. Alternative ways to solve the perceived problems are outlined. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

show abstract

“…Some Requests for an Opinion directly proposed orthographical corrections of names [7, 8]. M. Göker suggested that the orthographical corrections to be conducted should be carefully chosen.…”

Section: Minute 4 Debate Of the Current Drafts For Judicial Opinionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ballot was intended to be held in the weeks directly after the video conference. A variety of Requests for an Opinion were under consideration [1–11].…”

Section: Minute 4 Debate Of the Current Drafts For Judicial Opinionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Göker

¹

2022

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Arahal

¹

,

Bull

²

,

Busse

³

et al. 2023

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

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

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Judicial Opinions 112–122

Judicial Opinions 112–122

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About