Standardised Suffixes in the Nomenclature of the Higher Taxa of Prokaryotes an Aid to Data Mining, Database Administration and Automatic Assignment of Names to Taxonomic Ranks.

The formation and use of the scientific names of prokaryotes is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Originally deriving from the 1935 revision of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, it retains the treatment of scientific names as Latin words. Above the rank of genus the rank is generally denoted by a single, standardised suffix. This has great advantage in text mining and database infrastructure where the identification of the standardised suffix can automatically be linked to the rank at which the scientific name is being used. The only exception at present are names at the rank of class where, although a standardised suffix has been proposed (-ia) it does not allow one to unambiguously identify the rank of the scientific name, since it is also a suffix used at the rank of genus. In addition, due to the fact that the suffix at the rank of class was not regulated in earlier versions of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, there are names that do not follow the standardised suffix. Uniformity would be an advantage. The problem and a proposed solution are discussed.

Clarification of access regulations to genetic resources that are subject to the sovereign rights of sovereign states and the deposit of nomenclatural types under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

One of the goals of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes is not only to make nomenclature transparent and predictable, but to also make sure that the biological material on which it is based is available to either verify previous work or to allow further work to be undertaken. The key elements in ensuring the latter two aspects are nomenclatural types (type strains) at the rank of species and subspecies. With increasing regulations controlling access to genetic resources, the limitations put on access are not always evident at the time novel species or subspecies are proposed and corresponding nomenclatural types (type strains) designated. In a number of cases, limitations put on access have been discovered after the fact.

Marinobacter nauticus (Baumann et al. 1972) comb. nov. arising from instances of synonymy and the incorrect interpretation of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

Studies on Pseudomonas nautica Baumann et al. 1972 (Approved Lists 1980) and Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus Gauthier et al. 1992 have shown that they should be treated as heterotypic synonyms. As a consequence, they have been treated as belonging to a single species, Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus Gauthier et al. 1992. This interpretation of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria/Prokaryotes is, however, based on a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of the wording of Rule 15 as documented in the 1975 and 1990 revisions where the wording has been partially corrected in the 2008 revision. A key aspect of the incorrect interpretation is that the nomenclatural type of a taxon, in this case Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus Gauthier et al. 1992 (the nomenclatural type of the Marinobacter Gauthier et al. 1992) must be used instead of recognising the priority of the epithet in Pseudomonas nautica Baumann et al. 1972 (Approved Lists 1980), with the creation of a new combination Marinobacter nauticus (Baumann et al. 1972). It is now clear that there is no justification for that interpretation and it is necessary to create a new combination, Marinobacter nauticus (Baumann et al. 1972) in the situation where Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus Gauthier et al. 1992 and Pseudomonas nautica Baumann et al. 1972 (Approved Lists 1980) are treated as heterotypic synonyms. Additional studies have shown that Marinobacter aquaeolei Nguyen et al. 1993 and Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus Gauthier et al. 1992 should also be treated as heterotypic synonyms.

Taking a Closer Look at the Valid Publication and Authorship of Legionella bozemanae Brenner et al. 1980, Fluoribacter bozemanae Garrity et al. 1980, Legionella pittsburghensis Pasculle et al. 1980, Legionella micdadei Hébert et al. 1980 and Tatlockia micdadei (Hébert et al. 1980) Garrity et al. 1980.

The names Legionella bozemanae Brenner et al. 1980, Fluoribacter bozemanae Garrity et al. 1980, Legionella pittsburghensis Pasculle et al. 1980, Legionella micdadei Hébert et al. 1980 and Tatlockia micdadei (Hébert et al. 1980) Garrity et al. 1980, all appeared in the same issue of the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. Fluoribacter bozemanae Garrity et al. 1980 appeared as the name of new taxon at the rank of species and Tatlockia micdadei (Hébert et al. 1980) Garrity et al. 1980 as a new combination, both in the same original article in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. The names Legionella bozemanae Brenner et al. 1980 (originally published as Legionella bozemanii) Legionella pittsburghensis Pasculle et al. 1980 (originally published as Legionella pittsburgensis) and Legionella micdadei Hébert et al. 1980, all appeared initially in effective publications outside of the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology and were validly published by inclusion in Validation List no 5. While it is evident from the inclusion of the names Legionella bozemanae Brenner et al. 1980, Legionella pittsburghensis Pasculle et al. 1980 and Legionella micdadei Hébert et al. 1980 on Validation List no. 5 that the authors were following the 1975 revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, the wording of Garrity et al. 1980 indicates that they were following the interpretation found in the 1966 revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Changes to the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria between the 1966 and 1975 revisions introduced new criteria for the valid publication of names. In particular, there was a change from all effective publications being accepted as the publication in which valid publication of a name could occur to only one journal being accepted as the publication in which valid publication could occur (the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, now the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology). This change has a direct effect on the order of valid publication of the names Legionella bozemanae Brenner et al. 1980, Fluoribacter bozemanae Garrity et al. 1980, Legionella pittsburghensis Pasculle et al. 1980, Legionella micdadei Hébert et al. 1980 and Tatlockia micdadei (Hébert et al. 1980) Garrity et al. 1980, their authorships, as well as determining which names should be treated as names of new taxa at the rank of species (sp. nov.) vs new combinations (comb. nov.) based on the names of existing taxa. Given the fact that Legionella pittsburghensis Pasculle et al. 1980, Legionella micdadei Hébert et al. 1980 and Tatlockia micdadei (Hébert et al. 1980) Garrity et al. 1980 share the same nomenclatural type, this also has an influence on which epithet has priority and which epithet is illegitimate.

Replacement of the illegitimate genus name Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018 in Hungateiclostridium mesophilum Rettenmaier et al. 2019 by Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980, creating Acetivibrio mesophilus (Rettenmaier et al. 2019).

A recent publication has documented the fact that when the nomenclatural types of the genera Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018 [Hungateiclostridium thermocellum (Viljoen et al. 1926) Zhang et al. 2018], Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980 (Acetivibrio cellulolyticus Patel et al. 1980) and Herbivorax Koeck et al. 2016 (Herbivorax saccincola Koeck et al. 2016) are treated as being members of the same genus, i.e. Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018, Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980 and Herbivorax Koeck et al. 2016 are treated as heterotypic synonyms, the name at the rank of genus to be used is Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980 and Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018 is an illegitimate name. In a previous publication this led to the replacement of the genus name Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018 in the combinations Hungateiclostridium aldrichii (Yang et al. 1990) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium alkalicellulosi (Zhilina et al. 2006) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium clariflavum (Shiratori et al. 2009) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium straminisolvens (Kato et al. 2004) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium saccincola (Koeck et al. 2016) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium cellulolyticus (Patel et al. 1980) Zhang et al. 2018 and Hungateiclostridium thermocellum (Viljoen et al. 1926) Zhang et al. 2018. Given the fact that the name Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018 is illegitimate, Hungateiclostridium mesophilum Rettenmaier et al. 2019 must follow the same fate as other members of the genus and the illegitimate genus name replaced by the genus name Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980, creating the combination Acetivibrio mesophilus (Rettenmaier et al. 2019).

The names Hungateiclostridium Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium thermocellum (Viljoen et al. 1926) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium cellulolyticum (Patel et al. 1980) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium aldrichii (Yang et al. 1990) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium alkalicellulosi (Zhilina et al. 2006) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium clariflavum (Shiratori et al. 2009) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium straminisolvens (Kato et al. 2004) Zhang et al. 2018 and Hungateiclostridium saccincola (Koeck et al. 2016) Zhang et al. 2018 contravene Rule 51b of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and require replacement names in the genus Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980.

A recent publication has created the genus name HungateiclostridiumZhang et al. 2018 and the new combinations Hungateiclostridium cellulolyticum (Patel et al. 1980) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium aldrichii (Yang et al. 1990.) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium alkalicellulosi (Zhilina et al. 2006) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium clariflavum (Shiratori et al. 2009) Zhang et al. 2018, Hungateiclostridium straminisolvens (Kato et al. 2004) Zhang et al. 2018 and Hungateiclostridium saccincola (Koeck et al. 2016) Zhang et al. 2018 for names at the rank of species that were previously either included in the genus ClostridiumPrazmowski 1880, Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980 or HerbivoraxKoeck et al. 2016. Rules 23a, 38, 39b, 41a, 42 and 44 have not been followed and an illegitimate name at the rank of genus or illegitimate combinations at the rank of species as defined in Rule 51b(1) and (2) have been created. Another aspect is recognising the fact that an instance of heterotypic synonym has been created between Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980, HerbivoraxKoeck et al. 2016 and HungateiclostridiumZhang et al. 2018, where the earliest validly published genus name is Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980, of which the nomenclatural type is Acetivibrio cellulolyticus Patel et al. 1980. It follows from Rules 23a, 38, 39a, 39b, 41a, 42 and 44 that the genus name to be used is Acetivibrio Patel et al. 1980, with new combinations in that genus replacing those published in the genus HungateiclostridiumZhang et al. 2018, which together with the genus name are illegitimate according to Rule 51b of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Additional issues are also addressed with regards to the names Pseudoclostridium thermosuccinogenes (Drent et al. 1995) Zhang et al. 2018, PseudoclostridiumZhang et al. 2018 OscillospiraceaePeshkoff 1940 (Approved Lists 1980), RuminococcaceaeRainey 2010, Eubacteriales Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) and ClostridialesPrévot 1953 (Approved Lists 1980).

Marinobacterium iners (Iizuka and Komagata 1964) comb. nov. arising from the Synonymy of Marinobacterium georgiense González et al. 1997 and Pseudomonas iners Iizuka and Komagata 1964 (Approved Lists 1980).

Although there is documented evidence in the literature that Marinobacterium georgiense González et al. 1997 and Pseudomonas iners Iizuka and Komagata 1964 (Approved Lists 1980) should be treated as heterotypic synonyms, the nomenclatural consequences have not been implemented. Based on the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes when Marinobacterium georgiense González et al. 1997 and Pseudomonas iners Iizuka and Komagata 1964 (Approved Lists 1980) are considered to belong to the genus Marinobacterium González et al. 1997, the earliest epithet (from the competing heterotypic synonyms) is to be used for the resulting taxon, i.e., the combination Marinobacterium iners (Iizuka and Komagata 1964) must be created.

On the status of the names Corynebacteriales Goodfellow and Jones 2015, Mycobacteriales Janke 1924 (Approved Lists 1980) and Mycobacteriales Cavalier-Smith 2002.

The name CorynebacterialesGoodfellow and Jones 2015 has been validly published by inclusion in Validation List 164, with the nomenclatural type defined as CorynebacteriumLehmann and Neumann 1896 (Approved Lists 1980). The name MycobacterialesJanke 1924 (Approved Lists 1980) appeared on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names and is validly published, with the nomenclatural type defined as MycobacteriumLehmann and Neumann 1896 (Approved Lists 1980). The name Mycobacteriales Cavalier-Smith 2002 was validly published by inclusion in an article in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology with the nomenclatural type defined as MycobacteriumLehmann and Neumann 1896 (Approved Lists 1980). As circumscribed by the authors MycobacterialesJanke 1924 (Approved Lists 1980), Mycobacteriales Cavalier-Smith 2002 and CorynebacterialesGoodfellow and Jones 2015 all contain the genus MycobacteriumLehmann and Neumann 1896 (Approved Lists 1980), which is the nomenclatural type of MycobacterialesJanke 1924 (Approved Lists 1980). Consequently, the name CorynebacterialesGoodfellow and Jones 2015 is not the earliest validly published name, contravenes Rule 51b (1) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and according to Rule 54 must be replaced. In the case of Mycobacteriales Cavalier-Smith 2002 the status of the name appears to be currently uncertain, but a solution may be in sight.

The status of names whose nomenclatural types are based on strains deposited solely for patent purposes.

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes specifically forbids the use of strains deposited solely for patent purposes from serving as nomenclatural types. Despite this ruling there are a number of names at the rank of species where strains deposited solely for patent purposes have been designated as the nomenclatural type. In some cases there is only a single deposit where the strain is deposited solely for patent purposes or there are two or more deposits in culture collections, one (or more) of which is a strain deposited solely for patent purposes. In such instances the requirements of Rule 30 may not be fulfilled and the valid publication of the corresponding names called into question because nomenclatural types have not been deposited in at least two publicly accessible culture collections in different countries.

The role of incorrect citation of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and subsequent misinterpretation in causing unnecessary nomenclatural confusion.

The list that notifies names published in volume 68, part 1 of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology provides the information that a number of names of species in the genus Clavibacter that had previously been treated as names at the rank of subspecies were illegitimate because they contravene Rule 34a and Rule 50a of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Rule 34a deals with combinations at the same rank and this rule does not apply to names that involve a change in rank. Rule 34a, b and c all fall under the heading new combinations and that in the case of names at the rank of species and subspecies where a change in rank is made Rule 34c applies. Rule 50a applies to names at the rank of subspecies that are elevated to species, but it is unclear why these nomenclatural changes lead to illegitimate names. Fortunately the Code is explicit in stating the role of the Notification Lists is limited to allowing orthographic corrections to be made. It is necessary to publish an interpretation of the status of these names that is consistent with the current wording of the Code.

Rule 24b of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes and regulating the priority of names and epithets considered to be associated with heterotypic synonyms.

Rule 24b of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes regulates the priority of names that are considered to be heterotypic synonyms. However, the rule is imperfect because it caters only for names that compete for priority that were only included on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names or for names that were only validly published in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology or the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, either in an original article or via the Validation Lists. Although this should be self-explanatory, Rule 24b does not cater for what happens when one or more names considered to be heterotypic synonyms have appeared on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names while other names also considered to be heterotypic synonyms were validly published in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology or the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, either in an original article or via the Validation Lists. Formal changes to the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes are required.

Arachnia propionica (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Pine and Georg 1969 (Approved Lists 1980), Propionibacterium propionicum corrig. (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Charfreitag et al. 1988 and Pseudopropionibacterium propionicum (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Scholz and Kilian 2016 and the nomenclatural consequences of changes in the taxonomy of the genus Propionibacterium.

In a recent publication dealing with the classification of species assigned to the genus Propionibacterium, evidence was presented supporting that it would be appropriate to sub-divide the genus into four genera, Propionibacterium Orla-Jensen 1909 (Approved Lists 1980) emend. Scholz and Kilian 2016, Acidipropionibacterium Scholz and Kilian 2016, Cutibacterium Scholz and Kilian 2016 and Pseudopropionibacterium Scholz and Kilian 2016. Of these genera, Pseudopropionibacterium Scholz and Kilian 2016 was proposed to contain a single species Pseudopropionibacterium propionicum (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Scholz and Kilian 2016 that is also the nomenclatural type. The nomenclatural type of Pseudopropionibacterium propionicum (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Scholz and Kilian 2016 is also the nomenclatural type of Propionibacterium propionicum corrig. (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Charfreitag et al. 1988 and Arachnia propionica (Buchanan and Pine 1962) [Pine and Georg 1969 (Approved Lists 1980)] and are consequently homotypic synonyms. Arachnia propionica(Buchanan and Pine 1962) Pine and Georg 1969 (Approved Lists 1980) was the nomenclatural type and only species placed within the genus Arachnia Pine and Georg 1969 (Approved Lists 1980). In the light of this fact, the consequences for the names Arachnia propionica (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Pine and Georg 1969 (Approved Lists 1980), Propionibacterium propionicum corrig. (Buchanan and Pine 1962) Charfreitag et al. 1988 and Pseudopropionibacterium propionicum(Buchanan and Pine 1962) Scholz and Kilian 2016 are discussed together with the correct name for the recently validly published name Pseudopropionibacterium rubrum Saito et al. 2018.

Clarifying the definition and role of effective publication in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes with proposals to make changes.

The term effective publication and the adjectival form effectively published occur at numerous points in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. As defined in Rule 25a the term refers to a form of publication rather than to names or descriptions. Although names are also defined as being effectively published, which is also defined as a status under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, such names are not automatically validly published and only validly published names can have a status under the Code. If one clearly separates the act of publication of scientific works from other elements of the Code then it is possible to clarify the workings of the Code whereby only names included in scientific works that are published in accordance with Rule 25a may have a status under the Code once they are validly published. Similarly names would then be validly published or not validly published, with the latter, irrespective of where they are found, having no status under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

When treated as heterotypic synonyms the names Caryophanaceae Peshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) and Caryophanales Peshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) have priority over the names Planococcaceae Krasil'nikov 1949 (Approved Lists 1980) and Bacillales Prévot 1953 (Approved Lists 1980), respectively.

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes provides rules that govern the way names are to be selected based on priority of valid publication when two or more alternatives (synonyms) are available. However, these rules are not always followed. In the case of the name CaryophanaceaePeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980), when its nomenclatural type CaryophanonPeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) is placed in the same taxon as PlanococcusMigula 1894 (Approved Lists 1980), the nomenclatural type of PlanococcaceaeKrasil'nikov 1949 (Approved Lists 1980), then the two are considered to be heterotypic synonyms and the name which has priority is CaryophanaceaePeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980). Similarly in the case of the name CaryophanalesPeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) when its nomenclatural type CaryophanonPeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) is placed in the same taxon as Bacillus Cohn 1872 (Approved Lists 1980), the nomenclatural type of BacillalesPrévot 1953 (Approved Lists 1980), then the two are considered to be heterotypic synonyms and the name which has priority is CaryophanalesPeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) While the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes are unambiguous in determining the correct names despite the fact that the names CaryophanaceaePeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) and CaryophanalesPeshkoff 1939 (Approved Lists 1980) are rarely used.

The name Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 contains Nitrobacter Winogradsky 1892 (Approved Lists 1980), the nomenclatural type of the family Nitrobacteraceae Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980), is illegitimate and proposals to alter the wording of Rule 54 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to clarify the fact that the family name Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 is replaced by the family name Nitrobacteraceae Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) the only correct name.

The new name at the rank of family Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 was created to include the genera Afipia Brenner et al. 1992, Agromonas Ohta and Hattori 1985, Blastobacter Zavarzin 1961 (Approved Lists 1980), Bosea Das et al. 1996, Bradyrhizobium Jordan 1982 (the nomenclatural type), Nitrobacter Winogradsky 1892 (Approved Lists 1980), Oligotropha Meyer et al. 1994, Rhodoblastus Imhoff 2001 and Rhodopseudomonas Czurda and Maresch 1937 (Approved Lists 1980). However, Nitrobacter Winogradsky 1892 (Approved Lists 1980) is the nomenclatural type of Nitrobacteraceae Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) a name at the rank of family that was validly published prior to the valid publication of Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 and has priority. In addition Rule 51b (1) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes rules that under these circumstances Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 is an illegitimate name. Illegitimate names may not be used (Rule 51a) and illegitimate names are also not taken into consideration when determining priority (Rule 23a). Nitrobacteraceae Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) is the only correct name (Rule 23a). Despite these facts the name Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 continues to be used, perhaps because the fact that it is an illegitimate name and the consequences of that status are not fully understood. A revision of Rule 54 would also appear to be appropriate in order to further emphasise the fact that the family name Bradyrhizobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006 must be replaced by the family name Nitrobacteraceae Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980), which is the oldest legitimate name and is the only correct name that may be used for the taxon that includes Bradyrhizobium Jordan 1982 and Nitrobacter Winogradsky 1892 (Approved Lists 1980).

Rule 29 and combined generic and specific descriptions.

Rule 29 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes caters for the situation where a new genus containing a single species may have a combined description. However, Rule 29 does not clearly state how this is to be implemented with regard to Rules 16 and 27.

Proposed modifications to Rule 40d of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

The wording of Rule 40d was discussed at the XIIth International (IUMS) Congress of Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology, Istanbul in 2008 and some changes were made to clarify how the authorship of names covered by this rule were to be cited. However, a key topic that was raised and discussed was the issue of wording that either automatically creates a subspecies name or whether an automatic consequence of the rule was that a subspecies name based on the nomenclatural type of the corresponding species was required, but must be validly published in accordance with the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. The differences are subtle, but important.

Introducing the concept of the isonym into the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

There are various ways in which the names of prokaryotes can be duplicated in the literature. An examination of the various ways that this may happen under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes indicates that a concept is missing, namely the one that refers to the same name based on the same nomenclatural type published in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology/International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, by the same or different authors in different manuscripts or in the Validation Lists. To cater for such instances it would be appropriate to introduce the concept of the isonym and to regulate how they are to be dealt with.

Comments on minutes of the Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Chlamydiae and the Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Rhizobia and Agrobacteria.

Two recently published minutes of sub-committees of the International Committee on the Systematics of Prokaryotes contain statements that are potentially misleading with regards the workings of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. These issues need clarification.