Paracoccus denitrificansT (Beijerinck and Minkman 1910) Davis 1969 (Approved Lists 1980) emend. Nokhal and Schlegel 1983 emend. Ludwig et al. 1993 emend. Rainey et al. 1999 emend. Hördt et al. 2020
This name was automatically processed by the SeqCode Registry.
Name in registry list
This name was registered by a mechanism parallel to registry lists.
Name submission
This name was submitted for evaluation
by a mechanism parallel to registry lists.
Name endorsement
This name was marked as endorsed.
SeqCode notification
The SeqCode was notified
of effective publication of this name,
through validation under another code of nomenclature.
Name validation
This name is validly published
but the SeqCode Registry does not have a priority date on file.
Valid (ICNP)
This name has been validly published under the rules of the ICNP and has priority in the scientific record
NCBI Taxonomy
This is the preferred assignment in NCBI Taxonomy , as captured in July / 202411. No single "official" taxonomy of prokaryotes exists, and
Principle 1 of the SeqCode indicates that "nothing in the
SeqCode may be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic opinion
or action". However, some well-curated taxonomic schemes exist that
can help authors navigate the complex relationships in prokaryotic
systematics, and the SeqCode Registry captures and presents some
schemes as a service to the community.
Genome Taxonomy Database
This is the preferred assignment in Genome Taxonomy Database , as captured in May / 2024 (r220.0)11. No single "official" taxonomy of prokaryotes exists, and
Principle 1 of the SeqCode indicates that "nothing in the
SeqCode may be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic opinion
or action". However, some well-curated taxonomic schemes exist that
can help authors navigate the complex relationships in prokaryotic
systematics, and the SeqCode Registry captures and presents some
schemes as a service to the community.
Automated Estimates
This genome was automatically retrieved and processed using MiGA
(The Microbial Genomes Atlas) [1], and the estimate has not been
overridden by the submitter.
To form new prokaryotic names, authors are advised as follows:
Names that are very long or difficult to pronounce should be avoided.
Names should differ by at least three characters from existing names of
genera or species within the same genus.
Languages other than Latin should be avoided when Latin equivalents exist or
can be constructed by combining Latin word elements. Exceptions include names
derived from local items such as foods, drinks, geographic localities, and
other names for which no Latin words exist.
Authors should not name organisms after themselves. If names are formed from
personal names, they should contain only the name of one person. They may
contain the untruncated family and/or first names.
All personal genus names should be feminine regardless of the gender identity
of the person they commemorate.
Names should not be deliberately contentious or abusive of any person, race,
religion, political belief, or ideology.
Names that include mnemonic cues are preferred because they promote learning
and memory.
The type of a species or subspecies is a designated DNA sequence that is
compliant with the minimum standards designated by the SeqCode Committee for
genome, metagenome-assembled genome, or single-amplified genome sequences.
The sequence must be available in the International Nucleotide Sequence Database
Collaboration (INSDC).
Upon recommendations of the SeqCode Committee or subcommittees on the taxonomy
of specific groups, the SeqCode Committee may approve other minimal standards as
suitable types for specific groups.
A name of a new taxon, or a new combination for an existing taxon, is not
validly published unless the following criteria are met:
The name is effectively published under the rules of the SeqCode.
The name is registered in the SeqCode Registry, along with mandatory data
fields listed below.
The type of the taxon is clearly designated. In the case of species or
subspecies, the type sequence is deposited according to Rule 18a and the
accession number cited.
The taxonomic rank is designated.
The derivation (etymology) of a new name (and if necessary of a new
combination) is given wherein one or more distinguishable roots are
identified. Roots can originate from any language in use or extinct (see also
Recommendation 9).
Note 1. When a new species or a new combination results in the proposal of a
new genus, both the new genus name and the new species name or the new
combination must be validly published. Publication of the new species epithet or
new combination alone does not constitute valid publication of the new genus
name.
Note 2. When possible, authors are recommended to include the SeqCode
Registry identifier in the effective publication.
Note 3. If the information provided in the registration and the effective
publication differ, the registration is considered definitive.
A name of a new taxon, or a new combination for an existing taxon, is not
validly published unless the following criteria are met:
The name is effectively published under the rules of the SeqCode.
The name is registered in the SeqCode Registry, along with mandatory data
fields listed below.
The type of the taxon is clearly designated. In the case of species or
subspecies, the type sequence is deposited according to Rule 18a and the
accession number cited.
The taxonomic rank is designated.
The derivation (etymology) of a new name (and if necessary of a new
combination) is given wherein one or more distinguishable roots are
identified. Roots can originate from any language in use or extinct (see also
Recommendation 9).
Note 1. When a new species or a new combination results in the proposal of a
new genus, both the new genus name and the new species name or the new
combination must be validly published. Publication of the new species epithet or
new combination alone does not constitute valid publication of the new genus
name.
Note 2. When possible, authors are recommended to include the SeqCode
Registry identifier in the effective publication.
Note 3. If the information provided in the registration and the effective
publication differ, the registration is considered definitive.