Emendation of Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to regulate the use of connecting vowels in compound names after stems ending in the same vowel.

Following a proposal to emend Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes with guidelines to regulate the use of connecting vowels in compound names after stems ending in the same vowel, I here report the outcome of the ballot on this proposal by the members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. The new guidelines to be incorporated in Appendix 9 are presented.

Proposal to add a Note to Rule 8 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to clarify the meaning of the term 'stem'.

According to the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and its appendices, names of higher taxa are formed by the addition of the appropriate suffix to the stem of the name of the type genus, and word stems derived from Latin and/or Greek are combined to compound names by means of an appropriate connecting vowel. The way the word 'stem' is used in the ICNP differs from the meaning of this term in textbooks of Latin and Greek grammar. We therefore propose to add a Note to Rule 8, clarifying that the term 'stem' when used in the ICNP corresponds with that part of the word that does not vary among the forms of the noun in the oblique cases, i.e., cases other than the nominative, and which can be obtained by deleting the ending of the genitive singular.

Call me by your name: Considerations of DNA sequences as types within wider discussions on fungal nomenclature.

This paper discusses the interaction between two substantial debates in taxonomy and nomenclature: The potential introduction of DNA-only types into fungal taxonomy and whether certain species names are offensive and should be changed. It argues that the acceptance of DNA sequences as types will likely lead to a proliferation of eponyms (species named after a person or persons) and that this will render them more likely to censure thus creating a point of instability in the fungal nomenclature. More fundamentally, it seeks to highlight the cultural and aesthetic attraction of names and to promote wider conversation on why we consider the Latin binomial central in our description of species.

Proposals to revise the Statutes of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

The International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes serves to administer the rules of prokaryotic nomenclature via the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, ensures the publication of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, and works to represent the interests of the microbiological disciplines regarding prokaryotic nomenclature. The functions and mechanisms of operation of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) are defined in its Statutes, which were last revised in 2019. As members of the 2020-2023 and the 2023-2026 ICSP Executive Board and the Judicial Commission, we propose here some further revisions to help improve the clarity and functionality of the Statutes.

Valid publication of names of two domains and seven kingdoms of prokaryotes.

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) now includes the categories domain and kingdom. For the purpose of the valid publication of their names under the ICNP, we consider here the two known domains, 'Bacteria' and 'Archaea', as well as a number of taxa suitable for the rank of kingdom, based on previous phylogenetic and taxonomic studies. It is proposed to subdivide the domain Bacteria into the kingdoms Bacillati, Fusobacteriati, Pseudomonadati and Thermotogati. This arrangement reflects contemporary phylogenetic hypotheses as well as previous taxonomic proposals based on cell wall structure, including 'diderms' vs. 'monoderms', Gracilicutes vs. Firmicutes, 'Negibacteria' vs. 'Unibacteria', 'Hydrobacteria' vs. 'Terrabacteria', and 'Hydrobacterida' vs. 'Terrabacterida'. The domain Archaea is proposed to include the kingdoms Methanobacteriati, Nanobdellati and Thermoproteati, reflecting the previous division into 'Euryarchaeota', 'DPANN superphylum' and 'TACK superphylum'.

Emendation of Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to provide guidelines for naming genera after geographical locations.

Following a proposal to emend Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes with guidelines for the naming of genera after geographical locations, I here report the outcome of the ballot on this proposal by the members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and present the guidelines to be incorporated in Appendix 9.

Is the bacterial genus name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 illegitimate? Request for an Opinion.

In 2014, it was reported that the bacterial genus name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 was illegitimate due to the priority of the cyanobacterial genus name Rhodococcus Hansgirg 1884. Since that time, the consequences of this conclusion have been largely ignored, whilst changes have been made to relevant Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, including significant changes to the way in which the Code treats the names of members of Cyanobacteriota. Given the complexity of the nomenclatural issues, we request the opinion of the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes as to whether the genus name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 (Approved Lists 1980) is illegitimate.

Emendation of Principle 8, Rules 5b, 8, 15, 33a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to include the categories of kingdom and domain.

Following an electronic discussion on proposals to emend Principle 8, Rules 5b, 8, 15, 33a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), I here report the outcome of the ballot on these proposals by the members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. These emendations enact the addition of the categories of kingdom and domain to the ICNP.

Emendation of Rules 8, 15, 22, 25a, 30(3)(b), 30(4), 34a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

Following an electronic discussion on proposals to emend Rules 8, 15, 22, 25a, 30(3)(b), 30(4), 34a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, I here report the outcome of the ballot on these proposals by the members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

Naming genera after geographical locations. Proposal to emend Appendix 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

Appendix 9, Section E of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes provides guidelines on how to form adjectival specific and subspecific epithets that reflect the geographical location where the organism was found or studied. It does not mention ways of naming genera after geographical locations. We here propose emendation of Appendix 9 with the recommendations on how to form such names. Comments on the implementation of the current wording of Appendix 9, Section E are also made.

Naming new taxa of prokaryotes in the 21st century.

The nomenclature of prokaryotes is regulated by the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and is based on the Linnaean binomial system. The current rules of the Code only cover the nomenclature of the cultivated minority. Proposals to incorporate the uncultivated majority of bacteria and archaea under the rules of the Code were recently rejected by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. The provisional rank of Candidatus can be used to name uncultivated prokaryotes whose names cannot be validly published under the rules of the ICNP, but their names can now be validated under the Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from Sequence Data (the SeqCode), which was recently established to cover the nomenclature of the uncultivated majority. Metagenomics, single-cell genomics, and high-throughput cultivation techniques have led to a flood of new organisms currently waiting to be named. Automated programs such as GAN and Protologger can assist researchers in naming and describing newly discovered prokaryotes, cultivated as well as uncultivated. However, Latin and Greek skills remain indispensable for proper quality control of names that must meet the standards set by the codes of nomenclature.

On requests for validation of names published in electronic material that does not provide a permanent record.

The validation of the name of a prokaryotic taxon under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) is occasionally attempted although the original proposal of the name does not meet all requirements. The publication of a corrigendum is necessary in such a case but authors must ensure that the corrigendum contains the full description of the respective taxon. The modification of the original article is not compatible with the ICNP. One requirement for valid publication is that the effective publication of a taxon name constitutes a permanent record. Journals which modify articles after publication are not acceptable as a source of effective publications.

How legislations affect new taxonomic descriptions.

Restrictions placed on the distribution of biological material by the legislation of countries such as India, South Africa, or Brazil exclude strains that could serve as type material for the validation or valid publication of prokaryotic species names. This problem goes beyond prokaryotic taxonomy and is also relevant for other areas of biological research.

Harmonizing Prokaryotic Nomenclature: Fixing the Fuss over Phylum Name Flipping.

Lloyd and Tahon recently criticized proposed bacterial phylum nomenclature changes (K.G. Lloyd, G. Tahon, Nat Rev Microbiol 20:123-124, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00684-2) precipitated by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP)'s official recognition of phylum nomenclature rules. Here, we extend the critique. While we applaud bringing consistency to phylum names, we prognosticate what this minute but momentous change entails for the future of microbial nomenclature and how this will sow confusion among researchers. Several pitfalls of the proposed ICSP framework-based nomenclature are also detailed, including (i) improper type genus name and suffix usage, (ii) loss of Bacteria/Archaea distinctions, (iii) disruption of major phylum name prefixes, and (iv) absence of organism name prevalidation. Finally, we suggest new names for the key bacterial phyla Proteobacteria (Proteobacteriota), Firmicutes (Firmicuteota), Actinobacteria (Actinobacteriota), and Tenericutes (Tenericuteota), while keeping the archaeal phylum names Crenarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, and Euryarchaeota. Together, these changes will help researchers attain chaos-free uniform nomenclature.

Proposals to emend Rules 8, 15, 22, 25a, 30(3)(b), 30(4), 34a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

To complete the ongoing revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, we here propose emendation of Rules 8, 15, 22, 25a, 30(3)(b), 30(4), 34a and Appendix 7. These proposed emendations deal with: the nomenclatural type of taxa above genus; the suitability of names published in supplementary material or in papers published on e-print servers for effective publication; the number of culture collection designations to be included in an effective publication of a name of a species or subspecies to qualify for validation of the name; the kinds of restrictions that may be attached to deposits of type strains; and the question whether elevation of a subspecies to the rank of species or lowering of a species to the rank of subspecies establish new combinations. Some of these emendations change the meaning of the Code while others are mere textual clarifications.

Nomenclature of prokaryotic 'Candidatus' taxa: establishing order in the current chaos.

In the mid-1990s, the category 'Candidatus' was established for putative taxa of as yet uncultivated prokaryotes. The status of 'Candidatus' is not formally included in the rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Thus, 'Candidatus' names do not have standing in the nomenclature. Curated annotated lists of 'Candidatus' names (not including phyla) have been published since 2020. By April 2021, about 2700 names of 'Candidatus' taxa had been published. The International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes recently rejected proposals to allow gene sequence data as nomenclatural types. An alternative code for naming uncultivated microorganisms (the 'SeqCode') is now being developed for naming the majority of prokaryotes that are as yet uncultivated. In the opinion of the author, there is no need for such a code, as the existing system, with nomenclature quality control also for 'Candidatus' names, fulfills the needs. Computer programs such as GAN which generates large numbers of correctly formed names from the short lists of Latin and Greek word elements and Protologger that produce descriptions directly from genome sequences will become important in the future for automated naming and description of large numbers of 'Candidatus' taxa from metagenomic and single cell genome data. However, the formation of interesting and meaningful names is encouraged whenever possible.

Rhodococcus spelaei sp. nov., isolated from a cave, and proposals that Rhodococcus biphenylivorans is a later synonym of Rhodococcus pyridinivorans, Rhodococcus qingshengii and Rhodococcus baikonurensis are later synonyms of Rhodococcus erythropolis, and Rhodococcus percolatus and Rhodococcus imtechensis are later synonyms of Rhodococcus opacus.

Two novel actinobacterial strains, designated C9-5T and C3-43, were isolated from soil samples of a cave in Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, and subjected to taxonomic study by a polyphasic approach. The organisms exhibited a typical rod-coccus developmental cycle during growth and grew at 10-30 °C, pH 5-9 and 0-3 % (w/v) NaCl. In 92 single-copy core gene sequence analysis, strain C9-5T was loosely associated with Rhodococcus tukisamuensis, albeit sharing low 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity (97.4 %). A combination of morphological and chemotaxonomic characteristics supported assignment with the genus Rhodococcus. With respect to 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity, the novel isolates showed the highest identity to the type strain of Rhodococcus subtropicus (98.7 % sequence similarity), followed by Rhodococcus olei (98.5 %) and Rhodococcus pedocola (98.4 %).The average nucleotide identity and digital DNA-DNA hybridization values between strain C9-5T and members of the genus Rhodococcus were ≤81.5 and ≤37.1 %, respectively. A set of physiological and chemotaxonomic properties together with overall genomic relatedness differentiated the novel isolates from members of the genus Rhodococcus, for which the name Rhodococcus spelaei sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is C9-5T (=KACC 19822T=DSM 107558T). Based on genome analysis performed here, it is also proposed that Rhodococcus biphenylivorans Su et al. 2015 is a later heterotypic synonym of Rhodococcus pyridinivorans Yoon et al. 2000, Rhodococcus qingshengii Xu et al. 2007 and Rhodococcus baikonurensis Li et al. 2004 are later heterotypic synonyms of Rhodococcus erythropolis (Gray and Thornton 1928) Goodfellow and Alderson 1979 (Approved Lists 1980), and Rhodococcus percolatus Briglia et al. 1996 and Rhodococcus imtechensis Ghosh et al. 2006 are later heterotypic synonyms of Rhodococcus opacus Klatte et al. 1995.

Public discussion on a proposed revision of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes.

The Editorial Board for the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) has compiled proposed revisions of the ICNP. As outlined previously (Oren et al., Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2021;71:004598; https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.004598) and to comply with Articles 13(b)(4) and 4(d) of the statutes of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes, a public discussion of the document will start on 1 July 2021, to last for 6 months. Here, we present the procedure for this discussion.