Göker, Markus

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.

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) now includes the phylum category. For the purpose of the valid publication of their names under the ICNP, we consider here four phyla. Slightly modified descriptions of ‘ Abditibacteriota ’ Tahon et al. 2018 and ‘ Desulfobacterota ’ Waite et al. 2020 are provided to meet the requirements of the ICNP for phylum names. Methanobacteriota is proposed as a substitute for ‘ Euryarchaeota ’ Garrity and Holt 2021, while Nanobdellota is proposed to replace ‘ Nanoarchaeota ’ Huber et al. 2002, based on the genus Nanobdella Kato et al. 2022.

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) recently underwent some major modifications regarding the higher taxonomic ranks. On the one hand, the phylum category was introduced into the ICNP, which rapidly led to the valid publication of more than forty names of phyla. On the other hand, a decision on the retroactivity of Rule 8 regarding the names of classes was made, which removed most of the nomenclatural uncertainty that had affected those names during the last decade. However, it turned out that a number of names at the ranks of class, order and family are either not validly published or are validly published but illegitimate, although these names occur in the literature and are based on the type genus of a phylum with a validly published name. A closer examination of the literature for these and similar cases indicates that the names are unavailable under the ICNP either because of minor formal errors in the original descriptions, because another name should have been adopted for the taxon when the name was proposed, because of taxonomic uncertainties that were settled in the meantime, or because the names were placed on the list of rejected names. The purpose of this article is to fill the gaps by providing the missing formal descriptions and to ensure that the resulting taxon names are attributed to the original authors who did the taxonomic work.

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.