Code Of Nomenclature Research Articles

Resolving Confusion Surrounding d-Ala-d-Ala Ligase Catalysis in Cyanobacterial Mycosporine-Like Amino Acid (MAA) Biosynthesis.

Mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) are natural UV-absorbing sunscreens that evolved in cyanobacteria and algae to palliate harmful effects from obligatory exposure to solar radiation. Multiple lines of evidence prove that in cyanobacteria all MAAs are derived from mycosporine-glycine, which is typically modified by an ATP-dependent ligase encoded by the gene mysD. The function of the mysD ligase has been experimentally described but haphazardly named based solely upon sequence similarity to the d-alanine-d-alanine ligase of bacterial peptidoglycan biosynthesis. Combining phylogeny and alpha-fold tertiary protein structure prediction unambiguously distinguished mysD from d-alanine-d-alanine ligase. The renaming of mysD to mycosporine-glycine-amine ligase (MG-amine ligase) using recognised enzymology rules of nomenclature is, therefore, proposed, and considers relaxed specificity for several different amino acid substrates. The evolutionary and ecological context of MG-amine ligase catalysis merits wider appreciation especially when considering exploiting cyanobacteria for biotechnology, for example, producing mixtures of MAAs with enhanced optical or antioxidant properties.

Status of the SeqCode in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.

The recent publication of an alternative nomenclatural code that targets prokaryotes, the Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from DNA Sequence Data (SeqCode), raises questions about how to treat names 'validly published' under that code in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM). Here, it is reiterated that the IJSEM must function in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP). It is also reiterated that the ICNP covers all prokaryotes and that it accordingly assigns a nomenclatural status to all names of prokaryotic taxa. This implies that the ICNP also assigns a status to names that are only 'validly published' under the SeqCode. It follows that the IJSEM must treat such names as not validly published, since 'validly published under the SeqCode' is not a nomenclatural status, under the ICNP. Such names should be marked accordingly as Candidatus names or printed in quotation marks. The same measures would need to be taken by other journals which intend to adhere to the ICNP.

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.

Naming and gaming: The illicit taxonomic practice of ‘nomenclatural harvesting’ and how to avoid it

AbstractWe coin the term 'nomenclatural harvesting' to identify a distinct form of taxonomic vandalism, in which practitioners generate taxon names for operational taxonomic units (OTUs) identified in phylogenetic trees published by others, even when there is no scientifically useful or practical basis for doing so. This practice can destabilize the nomenclature of scientifically established groups by swamping them with questionable new names, and this may have broader impacts in the application of taxon names to clinical toxinology, studies of biodiversity and conservation, and it may contribute to further erode the trust placed by the public in science. A change to Article 73 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the addition of suitable language in publications presenting taxonomic decisions to authenticate research effort and specimen work would alleviate the problem.

Description of Cylindrospermum solincola sp. nov. from Jammu and Kashmir, India and Further Insights into the Ecological Distribution and Morphological Attributes of Cylindrospermum badium

Two cyanobacterial strains KUT1-PS and 18C-PS were collected from the soil surface and vernal pool, respectively, from the Basantgarh village, Udhampur district of the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, India and characterized by a polyphasic approach. The morphological characterization indicated that both the strains showed typical Cylindrospermum-like morphology and probably belonged to the genus Cylindrospermum. Further, phylogenetic interpretations at the genus level were made using the 16S rRNA gene while the 16S-23S ITS region phylogenetic analysis and secondary structure analysis were conducted to enhance the resolution at the species level. The results from the comparative morphological analysis, the 16S rRNA gene percent similarity and phylogenetic analyses, the 16S-23S ITS percent dissimilarity and the ITS secondary structure analyses provided enough evidence that the strain 18C-PS is a representative of Cylindrospermum badium, providing further insights into its ecological distribution and morphological attributes. Additionally, the strain KUT1-PS was a novel species of the genus Cylindrospermum and is referred to herein as Cylindrospermum solincola sp. nov., in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants. This study also discusses the importance of comparing the newly sequenced strains with previously established species before making final taxonomic interpretations.

Nomenclatural standards of pear varieties bred by Sverdlovsk Horticultural Breeding Station

As part of the research there have been developed and published nomenclatural standards of 12 pear varieties bred by Sverdlovsk Horticultural Breeding Station: Berezhenaya (WIR-101392), Gvidon (WIR-101393), Dobryanka (WIR-101394), Zarechnaya (WIR-101395), Permyachka (WIR-101397), Raduzhnaya (WIR-101398), Rozovyy Bochonok (WIR-101399), Sverdlovchanka (WIR-101400), Sultan (WIR-101402), Talitsa (WIR-101404), Fleyta (WIR-101405), Chusovaya (WIR-103944). Plant material for nomenclatural standards was selected in the collection of the originator organization with the participation of the creators of these varieties. The herbarium sample of the nomenclature standard of each cultivar is represented mainly by two herbarium sheets containing parts of one plant collected during two periods: fruit and annual shoots ‒ in the fall 2019, flowers ‒ in the spring 2020. The herbarium label indicates: the herbarium number of the sample in the VIR Herbarium, the scientific name of the species, the name of the variety, the origin (the name of the organization in which the variety was created), the place of reproduction (where the plant was grown), the harvest dates, the names of collectors. Herbarium sheets are supplemented with photos of fruits and flowers. Nomenclatural standards are made in accordance with the recommendations of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), registered in the database "VIR Herbarium" and included in the type collection of Herbarium of cultivated plants of the world, their wild relatives and weeds (WIR). According to the same rules, herbarium samples of 3 elite pear forms (Limonadnaya, Sretenskaya, Tais) were made, registered and included into the Main Fund of the VIR Herbarium. After registration of copyright documents for cultivars, these samples can be assigned as nomenclatural standards. In total, 27 samples in the amount of 27 herbarium sheets were transferred to the herbarium collection. A digital image of herbarium specimen is available in the database «VIR Herbarium» (http://db.vir.nw.ru/herbar/gerb).

KANNAPHALLUS RAPHIDIUM N. SP. (MONOGENOIDEA: MAZOCRAEIDEA: HETERAXINIDAE) PARASITIC ON THE GILL LAMELLAE OF THE GOLDEN TREVALLY GNATHANODON SPECIOSUS (CARANGIFORMES: CARANGIDAE) OCCURRING IN THE COASTAL WATERS OF QUEENSLAND AND WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

An undescribed species of KannaphallusUnnithan, 1957 (Monogenoidea: Heteraxinidae) was collected from the gills of the golden trevally Gnathanodon speciosus (Forsskål) (Carangidae) from Moreton Bay, Queensland, during January 2016 and from Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia, during December 2021 and June 2022. The diagnosis for Kannaphallus was emended and the new species, Kannaphallus raphidium, was described. Kannaphallus virilis of Young, nec Unnithan was placed in synonymy with K. raphidium. The distal components of the male reproductive system and the arrangement of the clamp rows of the haptor occurred as mirror images among specimens of K. raphidium, suggesting that the respective antipodes of K. raphidium may have reproductive implications and function in the site selection of the parasite on the host's gills. A specimen of K. raphidium from Western Australia was sequenced for the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) mtDNA and ITS2 rDNA barcoding markers, and the phylogenetically informative 28S rDNA marker. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference analyses based on a partial 28S rDNA alignment, including all comparable heteraxinid sequence data available, resolved the Heteraxininae and Cemocotylinae as reciprocatively paraphyletic and provided evidence that Kannaphallus may be paraphyletic. No taxonomic changes concerning the subfamilies and genera of the Heteraxinidae were proposed. Finally, Kannaphallus univaginalisRamalingam, 1960 and Cemocotylelloides univaginalis (Ramalingam, 1960) Nitta, Kondo, Ohtsuka, Kamarudin, and Ismail, 2022 are considered nomen nuda sensu the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Proposal of Christiangramia gen. nov., Neomelitea gen. nov. and Nicoliella gen. nov. as replacement names for the illegitimate prokaryotic generic names Gramella Nedashkovskaya et al. 2005, Melitea Urios et al. 2008 and Nicolia Oliphant et al. 2022, respectively.

The prokaryotic generic names Gramella Nedashkovskaya et al. 2005, Melitea Urios et al. 2008 and Nicolia Oliphant et al. 2022 are illegitimate because they are later homonyms of the names Gramella Kozur 1971, a genus of fossil ostracods, Melitea Péron and Lesueur 1810 (Scyphozoa, Cnidaria), Melitea Lamouroux 1812 (Anthozoa, Cnidaria), Nicolia Unger 1842, an extinct plant genus, and Nicolia Gibson-Smith and Gibson-Smith 1979 (Bivalvia, Mollusca), respectively (Principle 2 and Rule 51b(4) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes). For Gramella, we therefore propose the replacement generic name Christiangramia with type species Christiangramia echinicola comb. nov. and we propose the reclassification of 18 other species of Gramella in the genus Christiangramia as new combinations. In addition, we propose the replacement generic names Neomelitea with type species Neomelitea salexigens comb. nov. and Nicoliella with type species Nicoliella spurrieriana comb. nov.

How, not if, is the question mycologists should be asking about DNA-based typification.

Fungal metabarcoding of substrates such as soil, wood, and water is uncovering an unprecedented number of fungal species that do not seem to produce tangible morphological structures and that defy our best attempts at cultivation, thus falling outside the scope of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. The present study uses the new, ninth release of the species hypotheses of the UNITE database to show that species discovery through environmental sequencing vastly outpaces traditional, Sanger sequencing-based efforts in a strongly increasing trend over the last five years. Our findings challenge the present stance of some in the mycological community - that the current situation is satisfactory and that no change is needed to "the code" - and suggest that we should be discussing not whether to allow DNA-based descriptions (typifications) of species and by extension higher ranks of fungi, but what the precise requirements for such DNA-based typifications should be. We submit a tentative list of such criteria for further discussion. The present authors hope for a revitalized and deepened discussion on DNA-based typification, because to us it seems harmful and counter-productive to intentionally deny the overwhelming majority of extant fungi a formal standing under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Reply to “Attempts to introduce a system of national, racial and/or ethnocultural discrimination in codes of biological nomenclature should not be tolerated: Comments on some recent proposals (Wright & Gillman, 2022, etc.)”

AbstractSergei Mosyakin in a publication in this journal (Mosyakin, 2022) criticises our proposal (Gillman & Wright, 2020; Wright & Gillman, 2021) to introduce a system that would facilitate recognition of indigenous plant names. In particular, he contends that the proposal is discriminatory on the basis of race. We certainly do not think it would introduce such discrimination. The concept of a revised system based on chronological precedence does not in our view favour any race or ethnic grouping since it merely attributes priority for the name on the basis of temporal sequence. Our system could be used to justify priority by any people as long as it could be shown that it was the first name to apply to a particular species. It is thus dependent on the evidence relating to when a name was first used, not by whom it was first used. We also reiterate that the proposal would not usurp the science of taxonomy nor remove credit from the relevant authority.

The double life of Bulimus ovoideus Bruguière, 1789: taxonomic implications for Streptaxidae and Camaenidae (Mollusca, Stylommatophora)

ABSTRACT The name Bulimus ovoideus Bruguière, 1789 is in current use for two different species, one from East Africa and one from the Philippines. The name has also been declared as the type species of both Edentulina Pfeiffer, 1856 (Streptaxidae) and Cochlostyla Férussac, 1821 (Camaenidae). We demonstrate that the use of this name for a Philippine camaenid is based on an early misidentification. To clarify the situation, we invoke Article 70.3 of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, concerning misidentified type species, to select the taxonomic species actually involved, Bulinus luzonicus Sowerby I, 1833, as the type species of Cochlostyla. Cochlostyla thus becomes a senior objective synonym of Canistrum Mörch, 1852. Under Article 40.2 of the Code, Helicostylinae Ihering, 1909 takes precedence of Cochlostylinae Möllendorff, 1890. We further show that the Philippine camaenids Orthostylus Beck, 1837 and Dryocochlias Möllendorff, 1898 are objective synonyms with the former name having priority. Finally, we designate a neotype for Bulimus ovoideus to stabilise its taxonomy. These actions permit the current nomenclature to be maintained with a minimum of disruption. The currently accepted name of the taxon in question is Edentulina ovoidea (Bruguière, 1789).

(195) Proposal to amend the Preamble by adding a “potentially sensitive content disclaimer and limitation of liability”

Authors of several discussion articles (Gillman & Wright in Commun. Biol. 3: art. 609. 2020; Smith & Figueiredo in Taxon 71: 1–5. 2022; Wright & Gillman in Taxon 71: 6–10. 2022; Smith & al. in Taxon 71: 933–935. 2022; Thiele & al. in Taxon 71: 1151–1154. 2022) and formal proposals to amend the Code (Smith & Figueiredo in Taxon 70: 1395–1396. 2021; Hammer & Thiele in Taxon 70: 1392–1394. 2021) recently proposed to allow and endorse the rejection and/or replacement of scientific names of taxa that are considered to be “culturally offensive and inappropriate”, or even some other names, those supposedly not offensive and inappropriate but, e.g., reflecting the “colonial or imperialist past”. In my opinion, such proposals are mainly based on political, social, ethical and/or ethnocultural criteria, which are not currently considered as nomenclaturally decisive in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (“Code”: Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) and other Codes of biological nomenclature. These ideas and proposals were extensively discussed (Knapp & al. in Taxon 69: 1409–1410. 2020; Gillman & Wright in Bionomina 25: 93–97. 2021; Smith & al., l.c.; Thiele & al., l.c.) and/or criticised in scientific journals (see Heenan & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 59: 291–322. 2021; Palma & Heath in Bionomina 22: 32–38. 2021; McGlone & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 60: 215–226. 2022; Mosyakin in Taxon 70: 1379–1380. 2021; in Taxon 71: 249–255. 2022; in Taxon 71: 1141–1150. 2022; in Taxon, https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12837. 2022). It is also worth considering that in its official communication on similar issues the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Ceríaco & al. in Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 197: 283–286. 2023) concluded that “renaming taxa on ethical grounds threatens nomenclatural stability and scientific communication”. I understand and respectfully acknowledge that some vulnerable or emotionally sensitive people or groups of people consider some names of organisms governed by the Code as “offensive and/or inappropriate”. In such cases, a sensitive content disclaimer and a limitation of liability statement are desirable. In particular, I think that such an addition to the Code could be useful for safeguarding the authors and editors of the present Code, as well as all those who in good faith and for lawful purposes create, modify and/or use scientific names of organisms covered by this Code, against possible accusations and allegations. Similar content disclaimers are currently available in many publications and online resources, e.g. Wikipedia (General disclaimer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Content disclaimer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer) and the Biodiversity Heritage Library (Acknowledgment of Harmful Content: https://about.biodiversitylibrary.org/about/harmful-content/). Further explanations and recommendations were provided by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions in their document of 2021 “Objectionable Third-Party Content: Library Responses” (https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/1754). (All online resources accessed on 11 February 2023.) “Potentially sensitive content disclaimer and limitation of liability Scientific names of algae, fungi, and plants were created and modified over the centuries by many authors of various national, ethnic, cultural, religious, political, historical, and other backgrounds, identities, origins, and traditions. Such names reflect the rich but also complicated and sometimes controversial history of scientific explorations and biological nomenclature. Anyone using the scientific names of taxa governed by this Code should be aware that this Code is not intended for judging, evaluating, changing, rejecting, or censoring such names because of ethical, cultural, religious, political, social, ideological, and/or other principles, criteria, and procedures, except for those explicitly prescribed in this Code (see Preamble 1, 12, Art. 51.1). The authors and editors of this Code and anyone using scientific names of organisms in accordance with this Code in good faith and for lawful purposes shall not be held responsible for any discomfort, inconvenience, offense, mental and/or emotional distress, or other possible negative consequences potentially caused by some scientific names of taxa to any person or group of people who may consider such names objectionable, offensive, or inappropriate. The use of scientific names of taxa in accordance with this Code in good faith and for lawful purposes should not be viewed as manifestation, support, or endorsement of any cultural, religious, political, social, racial, or other views, concepts, prejudices, and/or ideologies that may be deemed objectionable, offensive, or inappropriate to some people or groups of people.” I am grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their useful comments and editing.

(228–232) Proposals on orthography: Diacritical signs

(228–232) Proposals on orthography: Diacritical signs

(206) Proposal to guide the choice among grammatical forms in epithets with uncertain grammatical status

(206) Proposal to guide the choice among grammatical forms in epithets with uncertain grammatical status

(221) Proposal to add a new Recommendation after Article 38, with the advice to report local/indigenous vernacular names (if available) of new taxa and to use such names, if appropriate, in scientific nomenclature

Vernacular names and ethnobiological classifications of plants, fungi and other organisms form a valid ethnobotanical/ethnobiological system that is independent of, but at the same time complementary to, the system of scientific biological nomenclature (see Berlin, Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. 2014; Heenan & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 59: 291–322. 2021; McGlone & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 60: 215–226. 2022; and references therein). However, many scientific (Latin/latinized) names of organisms are based on or derived from ancient Greek or Latin vernacular names (Stearn, Bot. Latin, ed. 3. 1983), while some other scientific names use vernacular names of organisms in other languages. Wright & Gillman (in Taxon 71: 6–10. 2022; see also Gillman & Wright in Commun. Biol. 3: 609. 2020) proposed to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) by allowing the retroactive replacement of scientific names and/or epithets of plants and other organisms in favour of “indigenous names”, meaning vernacular names used by indigenous peoples. These ideas received much public attention and were discussed or criticized in several publications (see Knapp & al. in Taxon 69: 1409–1410. 2020; Heenan & al., l.c.; Palma & Heath in Bionomina 22: 32–38. 2021; McGlone & al., l.c.); see also detailed, critical comments by Mosyakin (in Taxon, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12837, and references therein). However, we understand that for many people the recognition of traditional knowledge of plants, fungi, and algae and the reflection of local/indigenous vernacular names of those organisms in scientific nomenclature is indeed important. In partial response to these sentiments and concerns, we propose the following new Recommendation to be added after Art. 38. “38F.1. When describing new taxa that have existing local or indigenous vernacular names, authors are advised to report these names and associated information on traditional knowledge in the protologue and, if appropriate and feasible, to use the local or indigenous vernacular names in forming the scientific names of new taxa.” The present proposal does not encourage any rejection or replacement of existing legitimate names with “indigenous” ones (as suggested by Wright & Gillman, l.c. and Gillman & Wright, l.c.). We strongly believe that Art. 51.1 of the Code, stating that “A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its epithet, is inappropriate or disagreeable, or because another is preferable or better known (but see Art. 56.1 and F.7.1), or because it has lost its original meaning”, should remain in full force. We are grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) for his valuable advice and editorial improvements.

(200) Proposal to amend the definition of the word “duplicate” in the footnote to Article 8.3

Under the present wording of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018; see footnote 1 to Art. 8.3, and Glossary), a duplicate is defined as (any?) “part of a single gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon”. That definition, if interpreted verbatim, may have important implications for nomenclature. For example, a separately preserved special pollen/spore sample or preparation such as a slide or other pollen/spore sample deposited in a pollen reference collection (see, e.g., https://globalpollenproject.org/Reference; Bezusko & Tsymbalyuk in Shiyan, Index Herbariorum Ucrainicum: 138–141. 2011), if taken from a type specimen such as a holotype, lectotype or neotype, may or even should be considered as an isotype, isolectotype or isoneotype, respectively. If the type specimen(s) is/are lost or destroyed, such a microscopic special preparation could be considered as an original specimen eligible for typification. However, it is evident that such special samples of microscopic or just very small parts (e.g. pollen/spore samples or preparations, small fragments or parts taken for DNA extraction, anatomical, micromorphological or biochemical studies, etc.) separated from a non-microscopic specimen, even if such samples or parts have a label duplicated from the label of that specimen, serve specific purposes and in most cases cannot represent all or at least the main diagnostic morphological characters of that specimen. Because of that, we propose the following amendment to the footnote in Art. 8.3. “1 Here and elsewhere in this Code, the word “duplicate” is given its usual meaning in curatorial practice. A duplicate is part of a single gathering of a single species or infraspecific taxon. However, separately preserved samples or preparations of pollen, spores, and/or other microscopic or small parts taken from herbarium or other specimens of non-microscopic organisms for specific purposes (e.g. for DNA extraction, anatomical, micromorphological, or biochemical studies) are not considered duplicates.” No changes to the Glossary are needed because the definition of the word “duplicate” in the Glossary refers to the footnote to Art. 8.3. The proposed amendment does not affect the nomenclatural interpretation of parts taken from specimens of microscopic organisms (e.g. duplicates of samples of microscopic algae preserved in jars, etc.). We are grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their comments and edits.

XBB.1.5 an emerging threat: correspondence.

XBB.1.5 an emerging threat: correspondence.

(2942) Proposal to conserve the name Dicksonia bipinnata (Dennstaedtia bipinnata, Mucura bipinnata) (Dennstaedtiaceae) with a conserved type

(2942) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Dicksonia bipinnata</i> (<i>Dennstaedtia bipinnata</i>, <i>Mucura bipinnata</i>) (<i>Dennstaedtiaceae</i>) with a conserved type

Judicial Opinion 128.

Judicial Opinion 128 addresses nomenclatural issues related to the names of classes validly published under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. It is confirmed that the common ending -proteobacteria of some class names is not indicative of a joint taxonomic or phylogenetic placement; that the nomenclatural type of Mollicutes Edward and Freundt 1967 (Approved Lists 1980) is Mycoplasmatales Freundt 1955 (Approved Lists 1980); and that the placement of a name on the list of rejected names does not imply that another name with the same spelling but a distinct rank is also placed on that list. The names at the rank of class Anoxyphotobacteria (Gibbons and Murray 1978) Murray 1988, Archaeobacteria Murray 1988, Bacteria Haeckel 1894 (Approved Lists 1980), Firmibacteria Murray 1988, Microtatobiotes Philip 1956 (Approved Lists 1980), Oxyphotobacteria (ex Gibbons and Murray 1978) Murray 1988, Photobacteria Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980), Proteobacteria Stackebrandt et al. 1988, Schizomycetes Nägeli 1857 (Approved Lists 1980), Scotobacteria Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) are placed on the list of rejected names. For three common nominative singular suffixes of genus names their genitive singular and nominative plural forms are confirmed: -bacter (-bacteris, -bacteres); -fex (-ficis, -fices); and -genes (-genis, -genes). The class names Aquificae Reysenbach 2002, Chrysiogenetes Garrity and Holt 2002, Chthonomonadetes Lee et al. 2011, Gemmatimonadetes Zhang et al. 2003, Opitutae Choo et al. 2007 and Verrucomicrobiae Hedlund et al. 1998 are orthographically corrected to Aquificia, Chrysiogenia, Chthonomonadia, Gemmatimonadia, Opitutia and Verrucomicrobiia, respectively.

Rhagadiolus edulis (Cichorieae, Compositae), a replacement name for Lapsana rhagadiolus L. or a name of a new taxon?

Rhagadiolus edulis (Cichorieae, Compositae) can be treated either as a replacement name or as the name of a new taxon according to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Treating it as a replacement name would be nomenclaturally disruptive, whereas treating it as the name of a new taxon, confirmed by an appropriate typification, maintains current usage. Therefore, the nomenclatural type for the name Rhagadiolus edulis is discussed. The name is lectotypified by a specimen preserved in the Gaertner Herbarium at TUB.