Bisgaard, Magne

[Pasteurella] langaaensis has been found to be polyphyletic in relation to the type species Pasteurella multocida, as endicated by 16S rRNA gene sequence comparisons and a number of other comparisons (enclosing the genus name in brackets). 16S rRNA gene sequence-based phylogeny confirmed that [P.] langaaensis is unrelated to other members of Pasteurellaceae at the genus level and may be a candidate for a new genus with 95% 16S rRNA gene sequence identity to the closest related sequence belonging to the type strain of [Actinobacillus] rossii. The highest digital DNA–DNA hybridization value predicted from the whole-genomic sequence of the type strain of [P.] langaaensis was to the type strain of Acinobacillus suis with 26%, confirming a separate taxonomic status at the species level. The phylogenetic comparison of concatenated conserved protein sequences determined in a previous study showed a unique position of the taxon investigated, which qualified for the status of a new genus since the highest conserved protein sequence identity was found to [A.] rossii with 86%. A new genus with one species, Alitibacter langaaensis gen. nov., comb. nov., is proposed. The genus can be separated from other genera in the family Pasteurellaceae by from 1 up to 12 phenotypic characters, and it is monotypic from other genera with respect to analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences as well as of predicted core genomic proteins. The type strain of Alitibacter langaaensis is F73T (=NCTC 11411T=CCUG 15566T=DSM 22999T=CPI 102678T=ATCC 43328T).

The naming of prokaryotes is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and partially by the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants (ICN). Such codes must be able to determine names of taxa in a universal and unambiguous manner, thus serving as a common language across different fields and activities. This unity is undermined when a new code of nomenclature emerges that overlaps in scope with an established, time-tested code and uses the same format of names but assigns different nomenclatural status values to the names. The resulting nomenclatural confusion is not beneficial to the wider scientific community. Such ambiguity is expected to result from the establishment of the ‘Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from DNA Sequence Data’ (‘SeqCode’), which is in general and specific conflict with the ICNP and the ICN. Shortcomings in the interpretation of the ICNP may have exacerbated the incompatibility between the codes. It is reiterated as to why proposals to accept sequences as nomenclatural types of species and subspecies with validly published names, now implemented in the SeqCode, have not been implemented by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP), which oversees the ICNP. The absence of certain regulations from the ICNP for the naming of as yet uncultivated prokaryotes is an acceptable scientific argument, although it does not justify the establishment of a separate code. Moreover, the proposals rejected by the ICSP are unnecessary to adequately regulate the naming of uncultivated prokaryotes. To provide a better service to the wider scientific community, an alternative proposal to emend the ICNP is presented, which would result in Candidatus names being regulated analogously to validly published names. This proposal is fully consistent with previous ICSP decisions, preserves the essential unity of nomenclature and avoids the expected nomenclatural confusion.