The status of the genus Prolinoborus (Pot et al. 1992) and the species Prolinoborus fasciculus (Pot et al. 1992)

On the basis of two other publications (Yarza et al. 2013; Nemec et al. 2019) and on the basis of resequencing of the 16S rRNA gene of Prolinoborus fasciculus CIP 103579T it is concluded that Prolinoborus fasciculus CIP 103579T, which is the only available strain of the species from culture collections, does not conform to the original description given by Pot et al. (1992). The strain investigated is a member of the genus Acinetobacter within the Moraxellaceae , a family of the Gammaproteobacteria and not a member of the Betaproteobacteria as originally proposed. Prolinoborus fasciculus CIP 103579T shared 99.8 % 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity with Acinetobacter lwoffii DSM 2403T. The two strains clustered together by rpoB- and core genome-based phylogenetic analyses and shared an average nucleotide identity of 96.47% (reciprocal, 96.56 %) and a digital genome distance calculation (GGDC) value of 66.9 %. Furthermore, the two strains shared matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight MS profiles to a high extent and showed highly similar cellular fatty acid profiles and physiological substrate utilization patterns. It is proposed that the Judicial commission consider (1) that the strain currently deposited as CIP 103579 be recognized as a member of Acinetobacter lwoffii ; (2) placing Prolinoborus fasciculus (Pot et al. 1992) on the list of rejected names if a suitable replacement strain, or a neotype strain cannot be found within 2 years of publication of this request; and (3) place the genus name Prolinoborus (Pot et al. 1992) on the list of rejected names [Recommendation 20D (3) of the Code].

A taxonomic analysis of Jania (Corallinaceae, Rhodophyta) in south-eastern Australia

The genus Jania J.V.Lamour. (Corallinaceae, Corallinophycidae, Rhodophyta) is represented by five species (one with two varieties) in south-eastern Australia. Descriptions and detailed morphoanatomical accounts of these taxa are provided, along with keys, information on distribution, nomenclature and habitat, and brief biogeographic comparisons within Australia. Relevant type material is illustrated in detail. A list of 79 morphoanatomical characters and character states used by previous authors (since 1928) to delimit or identify species of Jania was compiled. Of these, nine were useful for delimiting species occurring in south-eastern Australia. Most can be delimited using a single diagnostic character, but Jania pedunculata J.V.Lamour. is highly variable and is distinguished from J. crassa J.V.Lamour. by using several overlapping characters. Twelve additional names have been recorded for south-eastern Australia. The types of seven of these were examined during the present study or in recent publications. Types of five entities could not be examined, because type material had not been designated or was not available for examination or the name was not validly published. Information on misidentified specimens, heterotypic synonyms, rejected names and unverified records for the region is also provided.

Identification of strains Bacillus aerophilus MTCC 7304T as Bacillus altitudinis and Bacillus stratosphericus MTCC 7305T as a Proteus sp. and the status of the species Bacillus aerius Shivaji et al. 2006. Request for an Opinion

On the basis of 16S rRNA, rpoB, gyrB and pycA gene sequence analyses, characterization of biochemical features and other phenotypic traits and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) fingerprinting, it was ascertained that strains Bacillus aerius MTCC 7303T, Bacillus aerophilus MTCC 7304T and Bacillus stratosphericus MTCC 7305T do not conform to the descriptions of the type strains of the respective species. Strains MTCC 7303T and MTCC 7304T were indistinguishable from Bacillus altitudinis DSM 21631T, while strain MTCC 7305T should be classified as a representative of a Proteus sp. Our attempts to find other deposits of the type strains of these species were unsuccessful. Therefore, the results support the Request for an Opinion on the status of the species Bacillus aerophilus and Bacillus stratosphericus by Branquinho et al. [Branquinho, R., Klein, G., Kämpfer, P. & Peixe, L. V. (2015). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 65, 1101]. It is also proposed that the Judicial Commission should place the name Bacillus aerius on the list of rejected names if a suitable replacement type strain cannot be found or a neotype is not proposed within two years following the publication of this Request (Rule 18c).

The status of the species Bacillus aerius. Request for an Opinion

During a recent study assessing the diversity of the species Bacillus licheniformis, it became apparent that the type strain of Bacillus aerius was not available from any established culture collection or from the authors who originally described it. Other authors have reported similar findings when trying to obtain the strain (Lai et al., 2014), therefore, this species cannot currently be included in any further scientific studies. It is proposed that, if suitable replacements for type strains are not found or neotype strains are not proposed within two years following the publication of this Request for an Opinion, the Judicial Commission of the International Committee of Systematics of Prokaryotes place the name B. aerius on the list of rejected names.

The status of the species Bacillus aerophilus and Bacillus stratosphericus. Request for an Opinion

During a study assessing the diversity of the Bacillus pumilus group it became apparent that the type strains of both Bacillus aerophilus and Bacillus stratosphericus were not available from any established culture collection, nor from the authors who originally described them. Therefore, type strains of these species cannot be included in any further scientific studies. It is therefore proposed that the Judicial Commission of the International Committee of Systematics of Prokaryotes place the names Bacillus aerophilus and Bacillus stratosphericus on the list of rejected names, if suitable replacements for the type strains are not found or if neotype strains are not proposed within two years following the publication of this Request for an Opinion.

The status of the species Hyphomonas rosenbergii Weiner et al. 2000. Request for an Opinion

On the basis of 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis and several key phenotypic features, it was ascertained that the culture cited as the type strain of the species Hyphomonas rosenbergii , ATCC 43869T, does not conform to the description of the species, [Weiner, R. M., Melick, M., O’Neill, K. & Quintero, E. (2000). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 50, 459–469]. The type strain does not exist in any other established culture collection or with the authors who described this species. Therefore, it cannot be included in any scientific study. It is proposed that the Judicial Commission place the name Hyphomonas rosenbergii on the list of rejected names if a suitable replacement type strain is not found or a neotype is not proposed within two years following the publication of this Request for an Opinion.

The genus name Methanothrix Huser et al. 1983 and the species combination Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 do not contravene Rule 31a and are not to be considered as rejected names, the genus name Methanosaeta Patel and Sprott 1990 refers to the same taxon as Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 and the species combination Methanothrix thermophila Kamagata et al. 1992 is rejected: Supplementary information to Opinion 75. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes

The Judicial Commission affirms that the genus name Methanothrix Huser et al. 1983 and the species combination Methanothrix soehngenii Huser et al. 1983 do not contravene Rule 31a and are not to be considered as rejected names. The genus name Methanosaeta Patel and Sprott 1990 applies to the same taxon as Methanothrix Huser et al. 1983 and is therefore a later heterotypic synonym. The combinations Methanothrix thermoacetophila corrig. Nozhevnikova and Chudina 1988 and Methanothrix thermophila Kamagata et al. 1992 are considered to refer to the same taxon, a consequence of which is that Methanothrix thermophila Kamagata et al. 1992 contravenes Rule 51b and is placed on the List of Rejected Names.

Names at the rank of class, subclass and order, their typification and current status: Supplementary information to Opinion 79. Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes

The attention of the Judicial Commission was drawn to issues relating to the use of names at the rank of class, subclass and order and the nomenclatural type of names at the rank of class and subclass that were not covered by Opinion 79. The Judicial Commission ruled that names at the rank of class and order proposed by Cavalier-Smith (Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 52, 7–76, 2002) are to be placed on the List of Rejected Names (nomina rejicienda) and the use of names proposed in that publication above the rank of class is to be actively discouraged. In addition a list of names at the rank of class, subclass and order is given where the nomenclatural type, description or circumscription is unclear or where they otherwise appear to be not in accordance with the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria.

The status of the species Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958. Request for an Opinion

In a previous article [Oggerin M., Arahal, D. R., Rubio, V. & Marin, I. (2009). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59, 2323–2328], it has been shown that strain Beijerinckia fluminensis UQM 1685T and its derived equivalent B. fluminensis CIP 106281T do not conform to the description of the type strain of Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958. Indeed, both strains were identified as members of the species Rhizobium radiobacter and exhibited marked phenotypic and genotypic differences with members of the genus Beijerinckia. It was concluded that both strains, and any other equivalents derived from them, do not descend from the nomenclatural type. Since then, our attempts to find older deposits of the type strain, hopefully derived from the original isolate, or other existing strains of Beijerinckia fluminensis that could be proposed as a neotype strain, have been in vain. It is therefore proposed that the Judicial Commission should place the name Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958 on the list of rejected names if a suitable replacement type strain or a neotype cannot be found within two years following the publication of this Request (Rule 18c).