Ventosa, Antonio

Opinion 131 addresses a Request for an Opinion asking the Judicial Commission to conserve the genus name Proteus Hauser 1885 (Approved Lists 1980) over its earlier homonym, the protozoan genus name Proteus Müller 1786. The Judicial Commission agrees that the later homonym is illegitimate and that the replacement of the prokaryotic name Proteus would be undesirable. It is also concluded that Proteus Müller 1786 is an objectively invalid name under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Judicial Opinions 9, 12 and 130 serve as precedents for the conservation of Proteus Hauser 1885 (Approved Lists 1980) over Proteus Müller 1786. This action is taken here and makes the prokaryotic name Proteus legitimate.

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 familyHalomonadaceaeis the largest family composed of halophilic bacteria, with more than 160 species with validly published names as of July 2023. Several classifications to circumscribe this family are available in major resources, such as those provided by the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN), NCBI Taxonomy, Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB), and Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (BMSAB), with some degree of disagreement between them. Moreover, regardless of the classification adopted, the genusHalomonasis not phylogenetically consistent, likely because it has been used as a catch-all for newly described species within the familyHalomonadaceaethat could not be clearly accommodated in otherHalomonadaceaegenera. In the past decade, some taxonomic rearrangements have been conducted on theHalomonadaceaebased on ribosomal and alternative single-copy housekeeping gene sequence analysis. High-throughput technologies have enabled access to the genome sequences of many type strains belonging to the familyHalomonadaceae; however, genome-based studies specifically addressing its taxonomic status have not been performed to date. In this study, we accomplished the genome sequencing of 17 missing type strains ofHalomonadaceaespecies that, together with other publicly available genome sequences, allowed us to re-evaluate the genetic relationship, phylogeny, and taxonomy of the species and genera within this family. The approach followed included the estimate of the Overall Genome Relatedness Indexes (OGRIs) such as the average amino acid identity (AAI), phylogenomic reconstructions using amino acid substitution matrices customized for the familyHalomonadaceae, and the analysis of clade-specific signature genes. Based on our results, we conclude that the genusHalovibriois obviously out of place within the familyHalomonadaceae,and, on the other hand, we propose a division of the genusHalomonasinto seven separate genera and the transfer of seven species fromHalomonasto the genusModicisalibacter, together with the emendation of the latter. Additionally, data from this study demonstrate the existence of various synonym species names in this family.

The discovery of the new halophilic archaeon, Halorutilus salinus , representing a novel order, family, genus, and species within the class Halobacteria and phylum Euryarchaeota clearly enables insights into the microbial dark matter, expanding the current taxonomical knowledge of this group of archaea. The in-depth comparative genomic analysis performed on this new taxon revealed one of the first known examples of an Halobacteria representative coding the archaeal RuBisCO gene and with a streamlined genome, being ecologically successful in nature and explaining its previous non-isolation.

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.