| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxonomic Note |
Institut für Mikrobiologie & Biotechnologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Meckenheimer Allee 168, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
Correspondence
Hans G. Trüper
trueper{at}uni-bonn.de
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT MAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
|
MAIN TEXT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
, ICNB), corrections for 32 specific epithets that had been incorrectly formed as nominatives in apposition (Trüper & de' Clari, 1997, 1998).
In a letter to the editors of ASM News, Kilian (1998) complained about these corrections, accusing the authors of a ‘lack of respect for all those who use bacterial names in their professional life’. This letter was answered in a very honest and scholarly way by de' Clari (1999), who explained the correct formation of genitive nouns as specific epithets. In addition, he pointed out that changes in genus names (e.g. Pseudomonas to Burkholderia or Neisseria to Branhamella and further to Moraxella) seem to be more easily accepted by the microbiology community than simple grammatical corrections of incorrectly formed specific epithets.
At the IUMS Congress in Sydney in 1999, the Judicial Commission followed a proposal by Euzéby (1998) to (non-retroactively) modify Rule 61 so that from the year of publication of the minutes of the Sydney meeting, no grammatical or orthographical corrections would be accepted for names that have appeared in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, in the Validation Lists or in the Notification Lists. The minutes of this 1999 meeting were published in 2000 (De Vos & Trüper, 2000).
Subsequently, Kilian (2001) published a Request for an Opinion in which he proposed the conservation of at least ten of the incorrectly formed epithets of the 32 that had appeared in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Skerman et al., 1980), namely Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus rattus, Streptococcus cricetus, Erwinia ananas, Eubacterium tarantellus, Lactobacillus sake, Nitrosococcus oceanus, Pseudomonas betle, Rickettsia canada and Streptomyces rangoon. He further based his request upon Principle 1 (stability of names) of the ICNB (Lapage et al., 1992). At the meeting of the Judicial Commission of the ICSP (formerly ICSB) that was held during the IUMS Congress in Paris in 2002, Kilian's request was dealt with and denied. The Request for an Opinion was denied as, in this case, Rule 61 (orthographic and grammatical corrections) had been correctly applied by Trüper & de' Clari (1997, 1998) and it had been applied before Euzéby's proposal of 1998 became effective by the publication of the minutes of the 1999 meeting in 2000. The minutes of the 2002 Paris meeting contain a short remark on this matter (Saddler, 2005, see Minute no. 17iii). Thus, on one hand Kilian's request came too late for the Judicial Commission to revoke the corrections made by Trüper and de' Clari and, on the other, the argument for maintaining the 32 now correctly formed epithets weighed heavier for the Judicial Commission than the reinstallation of the incorrectly formed epithets.
Since then, this debate had remained quiet until the recent publication by Lambert et al. (2007) of another Request for an Opinion of the Judicial Commission of the ICSP. This Request for an Opinion recommended the conservation of the incorrectly formed epithet of Streptococcus scabies against the correctly formed epithet of Streptococcus scabiei. Their argument was that when the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Skerman et al., 1980) were published, this species was excluded because its designated type strain did not correspond to the original description. Validation of the name did not occur before Lambert and Loria redescribed it in 1989 (Lambert & Loria, 1989). Why should this be a reason to revive an incorrect name? During the manifold changes of the genus name from Tubercinia scabies (Berkeley, 1846) via Sorosporium, Oomyces, Actinomyces and finally to Streptomyces scabies, at least five opportunities were missed to correct the incorrectly formed epithet scabies to scabiei!
The authors further argue that the corrected epithet has not achieved widespread recognition or common use and try to support this statement with data from electronically accessible databases. Scanning the results obtained from the Google search engine (http://www.google.com) suggests, however, that journals such as International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM), Journal of Applied Microbiology, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, American Journal of Potato Research, Microbiology, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Plant Pathology and Systematic and Applied Microbiology are aware of the correct spelling of scabiei. Even the pages of the NCBI Taxonomy Browser website, the ISPP Taxonomy of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria website and those of the major bacterial culture collections contain the correct spelling. When a correction or change to a name is published in IJSEM (formerly IJSB), it usually takes about two years until the change is disseminated to the wider community of microbiologists; only a few will notice the change immediately. Thus citation data for 1997 and perhaps 1998 are of little value in this case. The Google search engine is badly suited for such a comparison because the years of the citations are not immediately visible. As we all know, Google also cites older papers with the (wrong) old epithet scabies in the reference lists of even very recent papers (which may use the corrected name in their texts) which would then be attributed to the date of the recent paper. Besides this issue, Google treats the key words ‘Streptomyces scabies’, ‘Streptomyces’ and ‘scabies’ differently. Google is well recognized as not being an ‘authority’ and one must critically evaluate the results. The question that Lambert et al. (2007) do not tackle is where to find the ‘authority’ associated with the correctly spelled epithet and the use of that spelling. Therefore, the use of such citation numbers by Lambert et al. (2007) is worthless as an argument for reinstallation of the old (incorrect) epithet. It certainly does not make the old epithet correct but may instead prove how little many microbiologists and agricultural scientists, not to mention all the other people and companies interested in this organism or the disease it causes, care about the correctness of names, with the exception of those few who have a deep interest in taxonomy and correct nomenclature.
The situation could easily be clarified if the end users were actually taught something about the nomenclature and taxonomy of prokaryotes and were aware of the fact that the current scheme is one of the best examples of a well maintained system. Official lists of names can be found at websites such as the Lists of Prokaryote Names with Standing in Nomenclature (http.//www.bacterio.cict.fr/), the Taxonomic Outline of the Bacteria and Archaea (TOBA; http.//www.taxonomicoutline.org) and Bacterial Nomenclature up-to-date (http://www.dsmz.de/microorganisms/main.php?contentleft_id=14), so one does not have to rely on a single publication in which the correct spelling of a name is given. Nomenclature only makes sense when it is correct in itself and when it is followed correctly! This is what many scientists nowadays tend to forget.
Do Lambert et al. (2007) and their possible supporters really expect the Judicial Commission of the ICSP, the highest authority on prokaryote nomenclature, to be so unreliable, irresolute, irresponsible and capricious as to throw overboard their correct decisions in favour of incorrect epithets?
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
de' Clari, L. (1999). Did we demonstrate a lack of respect in correcting a bacteriological misnomer? ASM News 65, 522
De Vos, P. & Trüper, H. G. (2000). Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology. IXth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology. Minutes of the Meetings, 14, 15 and 18 August 1999, Sydney, Australia. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 50, 2239–2244.
Euzéby, J. P. (1998). Proposal to amend Rule 61 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 revision). Int J Syst Bacteriol 48, 611–612.
Kilian, M. (1998). Necessary changes of bacterial names? ASM News 64, 670
Kilian, M. (2001). Recommended conservation of the names Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus rattus, Streptococcus cricetus, and seven other names included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51, 723–724.[Abstract]
Lambert, D. H. & Loria, R. (1989). Streptomyces scabies sp. nov., nom rev. Int J Syst Bacteriol 39, 387–392.
Lambert, D. H., Loria, R., Labeda, D. P. & Saddler, G. (2007). Recommendation for the conservation of the name Streptomyces scabies. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57, 2447–2448.
Lapage, S. P., Sneath, P. H. A., Lessel, E. F., Skerman, V. B. D., Seeliger, H. P. R. & Clark, W. A. (editors) (1992). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 Revision). Bacteriological Code. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.
Saddler, G. S. (2005). International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Xth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology. Minutes of the meetings, 28 and 30 July 2002, Paris, France. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 55, 533–537.
Skerman, V. B. D., McGowan, V. & Sneath, P. H. A. (1980). Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Bacteriol 30, 225–420.
Thaxter, R. (1891). The potato scab. Conn Agric Expt Sta Rept 1890, 81–95.
Trüper, H. G. & de' Clari, L. (1997). Taxonomic note: Necessary correction of specific epithets formed as substantives (nouns) "in apposition". Int J Syst Bacteriol 47, 908–909.
Trüper, H. G. & de' Clari, L. (1998). Taxonomic note: Erratum and correction of further specific epithets formed as substantives (nouns) ‘in apposition’. Int J Syst Bacteriol 48, 615
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
