Proposal to replace the pro-illegitimate prokaryotic names ‘Candidatus Nostocoides’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al. 2012 and ‘Candidatus Nostocoides acidiphilum’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al. 2012 with ‘Candidatus Nostocimimus’ gen. nov. and ‘Candidatus Nostocimimus acidiphilus’ comb. nov
Two species have been named in the provisional genus ‘
Candidatus
Nostocoides’: ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides limicola’ corrig. Blackall
et al
. 2000 and ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides acidiphilum’ corrig. Kulichevskaya
et al
. 2012. The type species of the genus, ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides limicola’ has since been transferred to
Tetrasphaera
Maszenan
et al
. 2000, which was later renamed
Nostocoides
Deshmukh and Oren 2024. This leaves ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides acidiphilum’ as an orphan species. Furthermore, Kulichevskaya
et al
. did not assign ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides acidiphilum’ to ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides’ corrig. Blackall
et al
. 2000. Instead, they proposed a new genus, ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides’ corrig. Kulichevskaya
et al
. 2012, in the phylum
Planctomycetota
. This is in violation of Rule 51b (4) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, making ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides’ corrig. Kulichevskaya
et al
. 2012 and ‘
Ca
. Nostocoides acidiphilum’ corrig. Kulichevskaya
et al
. 2012 pro-illegitimate names. To resolve this situation, I propose the replacement names ‘
Ca
. Nostocimimus’ gen. nov. and ‘
Ca
. Nostocimimus acidiphilus’ comb. nov., respectively.