Abstract
Rejection (nomen rejiciendum) of the name Borreliella and all new combinations therein is being requested on grounds of risk to human health and patient safety (Principle 1, subprinciple 2 and Rule 56a) and violation to aim for stability of names, to avoid useless creation of names (Principle 1, subprinciple 1 and 3) and that names should not be changed without sufficient reason (Principle 9 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes).
Highlights
The genus Borrelia, initially described by Swellengrebel 1907, was divided by Adeolu and Gupta [1] into two genera, one retaining the name Borrelia, the other named Borreliella gen. nov. containing species of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato species complex
Subsequent work has shown that the genus separation was based on insufficient data and the drawn conclusions are only supported by a subset of species of the genus Borrelia [2,3,4,5]
We described safety concerns pertaining to changing the genus name of Lyme borreliosis-c ausing spirochetes [27]: 1. The names ‘Lyme borreliosis’ and ‘Borrelia’ are thoroughly intertwined in medical literature
Summary
Margos et al, Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020;70:3577–3581 DOI 10.1099/ijsem.0.004149 Rejection of the name Borreliella and all proposed species comb. nov. placed therein Gabriele Margos1,2,*, Santiago Castillo-Ramirez3, Sally Cutler2,4, Ram B. Dessau2,5, Randi Eikeland2,6, Agustin Estrada- Peña7, Alexander Gofton8, Lucía Graña-Miraglia3, Klaus-Peter Hunfeld2,9, Andreas Krause10, Reto Lienhard11, Per- Eric Lindgren2,12, Charlotte Oskam13, Ivo Rudolf14, Ira Schwartz15, Andreas Sing1, Brian Stevenson16, Gary P. Wormser17 and Volker Fingerle1,2
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
