| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxonomic Note |
DSMZ – Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Inhoffenstrasse 7B, 38124 Braunschweig, Germany
Correspondence
B. J. Tindall
bti{at}dsmz.de
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT MAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
|
MAIN TEXT |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
) states:‘Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.Priority of publication dates from 1 January 1980. On that date, all names published prior to 1 January 1980 and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB are treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing types being retained (but see Rule 24b).
Note 1. Names of bacteria in the various taxonomic categories published up to 31 December 1977 were assessed by the Judicial Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names were prepared together with the names of the authors who originally proposed the names. These Approved Lists of Bacterial Names were approved by the ICSB and published in the IJSB on 1 January 1980. Names validly published between 1 January 1978 and 1 January 1980 were included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names [Note: the 1975 revision of the Bacteriological Code uses the wording ‘Names validly published under this Code between 1 January 1978 and 1 January 1980 will be added to the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names’].
No further names will be added to the Approved Lists. Those names validly published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included in the Approved Lists have no further standing in nomenclature. They were not added to the lists of nomina rejicienda and are thus available for reuse in the naming of new taxa. The reuse of a particular name cannot be recommended if such reuse is likely to result in confusion due to previous or continuing use of the name as a synonym, a strain designation, or for other reasons.
The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names contain for each name a reference to an effectively published description and the type whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type strain is available it is listed by its designation and the culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained is indicated. If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference material is listed if possible. Neotypes may be proposed in conformity with Rule 18c on such lists. (For citation of names on the Approved Lists, see Rules 33b and 34a.)’
In a number of cases, confusion has arisen because a small number of names that were published in the IJSB between 1 January 1978 and 1 January 1980 were not included on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Part of this confusion has arisen because it is often wrongly assumed that a name published in the IJSB or IJSEM is automatically validly published. This is not true, as indicated by the criteria listed under Rule 27, as applicable to the 1975 and 1990 revisions of the Code (Lapage et al., 1975, 1992):
‘A name of a new taxon, or a new combination for an existing taxon, is not validly published unless the following criteria are met.(1) The name is published in the IJSB.
(2) The publication of the name in the IJSB is accompanied by a description of the taxon or by a reference to a previous effectively published description of the taxon (see Rules 25a and 25b and, for genus and species, Rules 29–32).
(3) The type is designated for a new taxon, or cited for a new combination, in the IJSB.’
In cases where a name is not typified or accompanied by a description, it is evident that such a name is not in accordance with the Code nor can it be validly published. In such cases, these names were not included in the Approved Lists because they did not fulfil the criteria laid down by the Code. However, in some cases, the criteria for valid publication appear to have been met, and some degree of detective work is required to determine whether a name was intentionally not included on the Approved Lists.
Examples include:
(i) The subgenera Moraxella subgen. Moraxella and Moraxella subgen. Branhamella. At the time that these names were published in the IJSB, the appropriate taxa were not clearly typified, nor were descriptions of the taxa provided (Bøvre, 1979). The problem has been compounded by the publication of a taxonomic treatment that dealt with the names as validly published (Bøvre, 1984a), by their inclusion in updated lists (Moore et al., 1985) and by their further inclusion in a Validation List (Bøvre, 1984b) without taking the care to discover that the names were either not typified and/or that descriptions of the taxa had not been given in the relevant publication cited as the effective publication. No subgenus names were included on the Approved Lists and the wording of Sneath (2005) throws new light on this issue: ‘there were also problems associated with the ranks of subgenera and subspecies, because such names cause a major increase in the complexity of the Rules. In the event few were listed, and there has been no complaint on this’.
(ii) Rhodococcus sputi. This name is clearly accompanied by a description as well as clear designation of the type (Tsukamura, 1978). There would appear to be no case for not considering the name to be in accordance with the Rules of the 1975 revision of the Code (Lapage et al., 1975). Whether this is a case of inadvertent omission has a direct bearing on the revival of the names by Tsukamura & Yano (1985), together with the application of the rule of priority when considering the question of synonymy with other names (Zakrzewska-Czerwiñska et al., 1988; Tsukamura, 1982, 1983).
(iii) Lysobacter enzymogenes. Although divided into subspecies by Christensen & Cook (1978), the two subspecies names were not included in the Approved Lists. Tindall & Euzéby (2006) have outlined some of the problems associated with clearly identifying which descriptions apply to which taxa, as well as associated typification. The other question is whether these subspecies were deliberately omitted from the Approved Lists (see Sneath, 2005).
(iv) Streptococcus casseliflavus. This name is listed by Vaughan et al. (1979) as a new combination and a type is designated (in the abstract at least), but a description may be missing, although the name is clearly based on Streptococcus faecium subsp. casseliflavus. The problem is outlined by Tindall & Euzéby (2006).
These are clear cases of uncertainty/confusion and have either been the subject of articles (Tindall & Euzéby, 2001) and Requests for an Opinion (Euzéby, 2001; Tindall & Euzéby, 2006) or are the subject of ongoing discussions (Judicial Commission, 2008; Tindall, 2008). There is a need for clarification.
In order to avoid confusion for future generations, it is proposed that a number of small changes be made to the wording of Note 1 to Rule 24a as follows:
‘Valid publication of names (or epithets) which are in accordance with the Rules of this Code dates from the date of publication of the Code.Priority of publication dates from 1 January 1980. On that date all names published prior to 1 January 1980 and included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB are treated for all nomenclatural purposes as though they had been validly published for the first time on that date, the existing types being retained (but see Rule 24b).
Note 1. Names of prokaryotes in the various taxonomic categories published up to 31 December 1977 were assessed by the Judicial Commission with the assistance of taxonomic experts. Lists of names were prepared together with the names of the authors who originally proposed the names. These Approved Lists of Bacterial Names were approved by the ICSB and published in the IJSB on 1 January 1980. Names [delete validly] published between 1 January 1978 and 1 January 1980 and considered to be in accordance with the Code were included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. They are validly published by inclusion on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.
No further names will be added to the Approved Lists. Those names [delete validly] published prior to 1 January 1980 but not included in the Approved Lists have no further standing in nomenclature. They were not added to the lists of nomina rejicienda and are thus available for reuse in the naming of new taxa. The reuse of a particular name cannot be recommended if such reuse is likely to result in confusion due to previous or continuing use of the name as a synonym, a strain designation, or for other reasons.
The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names contain for each name a reference to an effectively published description and the appropriate type whenever possible. In the case of species or subspecies, if a type strain is available it is listed by its designation and the culture collection(s) from which it may be obtained is indicated. [It may also be possible to delete the wording If such a strain is not available, a reference strain or reference material is listed if possible.] Neotypes may be proposed in conformity with Rule 18c on such lists. Rule 18f deals with the designation of the type strain of a taxon not previously represented by a strain. (For citation of names on the Approved Lists, see Rules 33b and 34a.)’
This wording would help to clarify that, with the publication of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, a new starting date was set for the valid publication of a name, 1 January 1980. Based on this new starting date, a name cannot be validly published if it is only included in an article published before that date. Dates prior to 1 January 1980 may be used to determine priority, but only if used on the Approved Lists, and have no other function (Rule 24b). A further consequence would be that it may be necessary to make available an amended listing of names on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMAIN TEXTREFERENCES |
|---|
Bøvre, K. (1984a). Genus II. Moraxella Lwoff 1939, 173 emend. Henriksen and Bøvre 1968, 391AL. In Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, vol. 1, pp. 296–303. Edited by N. R. Kreig & J. G. Holt. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Bøvre, K. (1984b). Branhamella subgen. nov. and Moraxella subgen. nov. In Validation of the Publication of New Names and New Combinations Previously Effectively Published Outside the IJSB, List no. 15. Int J Syst Bacteriol 34, 355–357.
Christensen, P. & Cook, F. D. (1978). Lysobacter, a new genus of nonfruiting, gliding bacteria with a high base ratio. Int J Syst Bacteriol 28, 367–393.
Euzéby, J. P. (2001). Nomenclature of the subgenera Moraxella and Branhamella and of the nine species included in these subgenera and proposal to modify Rule 34a of the Bacteriological Code (1990 Revision). Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51, 1939–1941.[Abstract]
Judicial Commission (2008). The subgenus names Moraxella subgen. Moraxella and Moraxella subgen. Branhamella and the species names included within these taxa should have been included on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names and a ruling on the proposal to make changes to Rule 34a. Opinion 83. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58, 1766–1767.
Lapage, S. P., Sneath, P. H. A., Lessel, E. F., Skerman, V. B. D., Seeliger, H. P. R. & Clark, W. A. (editors) (1975). International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 revision). Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.
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). Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.
Moore, W. E. C., Cato, E. P. & Moore, L. V. H. (1985). Index of the bacterial and yeast nomenclatural changes published in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology since the 1980 Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (1 January 1980 to 1 January 1985). Int J Syst Bacteriol 35, 382–407.
Sneath, P. H. A. (2005). The preparation of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 55, 2247–2249.
Tindall, B. J. (2008). Challenging Opinion 83. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58, 1772–1774.
Tindall, B. J. & Euzéby, J. P. (2001). A taxonomic note on the authorship and date of valid publication of Rhodococcus sputi. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51, 255–256.[Abstract]
Tindall, B. J. & Euzéby, J. P. (2006). Lysobacter enzymogenes subsp. enzymogenes Christensen and Cook 1978, L. enzymogenes subsp. cookii Christensen 1978 and Streptococcus casseliflavus (Mundt and Graham 1968) Vaughan et al. 1978 should have been cited in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Request for an Opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 56, 2707–2709.
Tsukamura, M. (1978). Numerical classification of Rhodococcus (formerly Gordona) organisms recently isolated from sputa of patients: description of Rhodococcus sputi Tsukamura sp. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 28, 169–181.
Tsukamura, M. (1982). Numerical analysis of the taxonomy of nocardiae and rhodococci. Division of Nocardia asteroids sensu stricto into two species and descriptions of Nocardia paratuberculosis sp. nov. Tsukamura (formerly the Kyoto-1 group of Tsukamura), Nocardia nova sp. nov. Tsukamura, Rhodococcus aichiensis sp. nov. Tsukamura, Rhodococcus chubuensis sp. nov. Tsukamura, and Rhodococcus obuensis sp. nov. Tsukamura. Microbiol Immunol 26, 1101–1119.[Medline]
Tsukamura, M. (1983). Rhodococcus chubuensis sp. nov. and Rhodococcus obuensis sp. nov. In Validation of the Publication of New Names and New Combinations Previously Effectively Published Outside the IJSB, List no. 12. Int J Syst Bacteriol 33, 896–897.
Tsukamura, M. & Yano, I. (1985). Rhodococcus sputi sp. nov., nom. rev., and Rhodococcus aurantiacus sp. nov., nom. rev. Int J Syst Bacteriol 35, 364–368.
Vaughan, D. H., Riggsby, W. S. & Mundt, J. O. (1979). Deoxyribonucleic acid relatedness of strains of yellow-pigmented, group D streptococci. Int J Syst Bacteriol 29, 204–212.
Zakrzewska-Czerwiñska, J., Mordarski, M. & Goodfellow, M. (1988). DNA base composition and homology values in the classification of some Rhodococcus species. J Gen Microbiol 134, 2807–2813.[Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
