Homotypic Synonyms Research Articles

Taxonomy Identifiers (TaxId) for Biodiversity Genomics: a guide to getting TaxId for submission of data to public databases

Biodiversity genomics critically depends on correct taxonomic identification of the sample from which data are derived. Tracking of that taxonomic information through systems that archive data and report on genome sequencing efforts. For submission of data to the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC) databases (DNA DataBank of Japan [DDBJ], European Nucleotide Archive [ENA] and National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI]), samples and data derived from them must be assigned a species-level NCBI Taxonomy taxonomic identifier (TaxId, sometimes referred to as taxId or txid). We thus need to be able to identify the TaxId for a target species efficiently. Because the NCBI Taxonomy does not include all known species and cannot preemptively represent unknown taxa, we also need an efficient process for generating new TaxIds for species not yet listed. This document provides workflows for different kinds of TaxId acquisition scenarios and was created to guide users in these processes. Although developed for European projects such as Darwin Tree of Life and the European Reference Genome Atlas, the workflows are universally applicable and describe the use of ENA in resolving taxonomic issues. Too Long: Didn't Read (TL;DR): Use the ENA REST API programmatically to retrieve TaxIds for target species and confirm that sequence data can be submitted to those TaxIds. Use the NCBI Web interface to NCBI Taxonomy to identify potential homotypic synonyms. Request a new TaxId from ENA for a species not yet in NCBI Taxonomy, and for species-like entries for which the full Linnaean binomen is not determined (see https://ena-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/faq/taxonomy_requests.html#creating-taxon-requests). Discuss directly with the NCBI Taxonomy curators or the curators at ENA and NCBI whenever you think there is an opportunity to improve their database.

Whole genome-based reclassification of several species of the genus Microbispora.

The classification of Microbispora, a bacterial genus of significant ecological, agricultural, biotechnological, and clinical importance, has traditionally been carried out based on 16S rRNA gene sequences or phenotypic characteristics, which may lead to equivocal conclusions and it is not in line with the current standards. Moreover, some of the recent species descriptions have not been made using whole genome sequences (WGS), or when used, not all the species were included in the analyses. Consequently, some of the taxonomic conclusions drawn are equivocal, and therefore some currently accepted species should be synonymized. In this study, we revised the taxonomy of the genus Microbispora using digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) values, and by reconstructing phylogenetic relationships using whole genome sequences. Based on the clear phylogenomic separations and on the sequence divergence values, we propose to elevate Microbispora rosea subsp. rosea and Microbispora rosea subsp. aerata to the species level, and therefore to create Microbispora aerata sp. nov. with JCM 3076T (= DSM 43176T = ATCC 15448T = IFO 14624T = NBRC 14624T = VKM Ac-1507T) as the type strain. Hence, with this proposition, the correct name for Microbispora rosea subsp. rosea is M. rosea. Furthermore, we propose to reclassify M. camponoti as a subspecies within M. bryophytorum. Consequently, we propose the creation of the following two subspecies: Microbispora bryophytorum subsp. bryophytorum subsp. nov. with DSM 46710T (= CGMCC 4.7138T = NEAU TX2-2T) as the type strain, and Microbispora bryophytorum subsp. camponoti subsp. nov., comb. nov. with DSM 2C-HV3T (= DSM 100527T = CGMCC 4.7281T) as the type strain. In addition, we propose to reinstate M. amethystogenes as an independent species and not as a M. rosea synonym, and reclassify "M. cellulosiformans" as a subspecies within M. amethystogenes. Hence, we propose the creation of the following two subspecies: Microbispora amethystogenes subsp. amethystogenes subsp. nov. with NBRC 101907T (= DSM 43164T = JCM 3021T = NRRL B-2637T) as the type strain, and Microbispora amethystogenes subsp. cellulosiformans subsp. nov., comb. nov. with Gxj-6T (= DSM 109712T = CGMCC 4.7605T) as the type strain. Lastly, we propose M. fusca NEAU-HEGS1-5T and "M. tritici" MT50T as later homotypic synonyms of M. triticiradicis NEAU-HRDPA2-9T.

Colombian Orchidaceae: A Catalogue of the Pleurothallidinae


 
 
 Colombia is a major biodiversity hotspot, having one of the richest orchid floras in the world. The country spans over a million square kilometers of land, hosting a multitude of different ecosystems thanks to the complexity of its mountainous systems and influences from neighboring countries in Central and South America, as well as the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. Prior studies found an estimated 3591–4270 species of orchids occurring in Colombia, making it the most species-rich plant family in the country. About 35% of those orchids are members of the Pleurothallidinae subtribe, the largest group in the family and also that with the highest rate of species discovery. Here we record 1862 species of pleurothallids for the country, a significant increase from the 1286–1529 range estimated just a few years ago. We expect Pleurothallidinae to represent close to half the Colombian orchid flora. Colombia hosts roughly one third of all currently known taxa in the subtribe, and close to 60% of these species are found nowhere else in the world. These are clear indicators that the country is a highly important center of pleurothallid diversity and a key target for their conservation. The most species rich genera in the country are Stelis (521 species), Lepanthes (377 species), Pleurothallis (248 species) and Masdevallia (171 species). Country-level distribution is given for each accepted species. The closest floristic affinity is found with Ecuador, with which Colombia shares over 76% of the non-endemic Pleurothallidinae species, followed in the distance by Venezuela and Peru with just above one quarter of the non-endemics being shared. Numerous new country records are presented in the catalogue, many of which are illustrated with color photographs. We provide a full list of homotypic synonyms for each accepted taxon, as well as an annotated list of excluded taxa and newly proposed synonyms. Heterotypic synonyms are not listed, unless they are based on Colombian material. Typification for each accepted species is presented, with lectotypes, neotypes and epitypes being selected whenever necessary and available, as well as information regarding published illustrations. 
 
 

(2797) Proposal to reject the name Chenopodium pallidum (Chenopodiaceae / Amaranthaceae sensu APG)

(2797) Proposal to reject the name <i>Chenopodium pallidum</i> (<i>Chenopodiaceae</i> / <i>Amaranthaceae</i> sensu <scp>APG</scp>)

The controversial nomenclature of the fossil plant namesCheirolepis,CheirolepidiumandHirmeriella(Cheirolepidaceae/Cheirolepidiaceae/Hirmeriellaceae)

AbstractA comprehensive nomenclatural analysis of the generic and suprageneric names used for an extinct conifer group, treated as a distinct family under the names Cheirolepidaceae, Cheirolepidiaceae or Hirmeriellaceae or a distinct order, Cheirolepidiales or Hirmeriellales, is presented. The fossil generic nameCheirolepisSchimp. (1870) is an illegitimate later homonym of the name of the extant genusCheirolepisBoiss. (1849; Asteraceae). It has been superfluously substituted with a new generic name,CheirolepidiumTakht. (1957). The authorship and place of valid publication ofCheirolepidiumis corrected based on newly discovered information. The correct generic name for these fossils isHirmeriellaHörhammer (1933), established originally for a cone consisting of persistent bract scales lacking seed scales, because it has priority over the generic nameCheirolepidiumTakht. All three fossil generic names were employed for the same fossil cone taxon, which represented different stages of maturity of the same seed cone. The inclusion of bothCheirolepisandCheirolepidiumunderHirmeriellawas proposed by Jung (1968) in his formal lectotypification of the type of the genus name,Cheirolepis muensteri(≡ Brachyphyllum muensteri), with a cone specimen that was cited in the protologues of the types of both genera,Cheirolepis muensteriandHirmeriella rhaetoliassica. The lectotypification ofCheirolepis muensteriandHirmeriella rhaetoliassicausing the same elements results in the three generic names being homotypic synonyms. As a consequence, the correct family name for the fossil conifer group is Hirmeriellaceae, to be proposed for conservation against Cheirolepidiaceae. Cheirolepidaceae is inadmissible being based on the illegitimate later homonymCheirolepisSchimp. and thus itself illegitimate.

(2716) Proposal to conserve the name Melanocenchris against Gracilea (Gramineae)

(2716) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Melanocenchris</i> against <i>Gracilea</i> (<i>Gramineae</i>)

An inventory of the names of native, non-endemic vascular plants described from Italy, their loci classici and types

The census of the loci classici of 1,227 native, non-endemic vascular plants described from Italy is here presented and described. The effective place of publication of accepted names, basionyms and homotypic synonyms were identified and critically verified. The geographic information on the loci classici was excerpted from the protologues, as well as information on typification for the taxa described before 1 January 1958. The names without a holotype are 1,165. For 591 names a lecto- or neo-typification is available in literature, while 572 currently accepted taxa still need a type designation. For ten of these names showing previous ineffective typification, nomenclatural types are designated here (Allium savii, A. tenuiflorum, Anemone millefoliata, Catapodium tuberculosum, Cynosurus siculus, Filago congesta, Saponaria bellidifolia, Sclerochloa patens, S. zwierleinii, and Vicia leucantha). A new combination (Trisetaria aurea comb. nov.) is proposed. The general picture of the currently accepted taxa of vascular plants described from Italy, including endemics, amounts to 2,631, i.e. about 32% of the native flora currently recorded for the country.

An inventory of the names of vascular plants endemic to C Mediterranean and described from Tunisia

The census of the loci classici of the 98 vascular plants described from Tunisia, endemic to Tunisia or to Tunisia and the surrounding countries, is here presented and described. The effective place of publication of accepted names, basionyms, and homotypic synonyms were identified and critically verified. The geographic information on the loci classici was excerpted from the protologues, as well as information on typification for the taxa described before 1 January 1958. The names without holotype are 48. For 7 of them a lectotypification is already available in literature, 5 are lecotypified here, while 32 currently accepted taxa still need type designation. The new names Festuca scholziana Domina &amp; El Mokni and Sixalix lehoueroui Domina &amp; El Mokni are here proposed. For the names Linaria cossonii Bonnet &amp; Barratte, L. doumetii Coss. ex Bonnet &amp; Barratte, L. paradoxa Murb., Anarrhinum brevifolium Coss. &amp; Kralik, and Onopordum espinae Coss. ex Bonnet (second step) lectotypes are designated here.

Cynorkis citrata is the correct name for Cynorkis citrina (Orchidaceae, Orchidoideae)

In a recent correspondence in this journal, Cynorkis citrina Bytebier &amp; Pailler (2019: 299) was proposed as a new combination based on the assumption that Habenaria citrina Du Petit-Thouars (1822: tab 16) was its earliest name and thus its basionym. The latter combination was established by Du Petit-Thouars in his seminal work “Histoire particulière des plantes Orchidées recueillies sur les trois îles australes d’Afrique, de France, de Bourbon et de Madagascar”, in which 91 orchid species are illustrated. The protologue of Habenaria citrina consists only of an illustration with analysis (Fig. 1) and a short description in the accompanying tables for genera and species. However, it has been pointed out (Friis &amp; Rasmussen 1975, Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1976) that prior to the publication of his book “Histoire particulière”, Du Petit-Thouars already offered a “Cahier” of six grand folio coloured paintings that also appear in “Histoire particulière” for sale. Friis &amp; Rasmussen (1975) showed that this “Cahier”, which is extremely rare and of which they could only locate two copies, must have been released sometime between 1804 and 1819, although the exact date is not known. Plate V (Fig. 2) in the “Cahier” depicts the same taxon as tab. 16 in “Histoire particulière”, but is there named Habenaria citrata. It appears as though Du Petit-Thouars consciously wanted to change the epithet from “citrata”, meaning “steeped in lemon juice” to “citrina”, meaning “lemon yellow” and most likely referring to the colour of the flowers. Despite the fact that Rasmussen (1979), already back in 1979, pointed out that the name Habenaria citrata precedes the name Habenaria citrina, the former name remained absent from databases such as IPNI (http://www.ipni.org), Tropicos (http://www.tropicos.org) and WCSP (https://wcsp.science.kew.org), and escaped our attention. This oversight is corrected below, and a taxonomic treatment is presented in which all homotypic synonyms are listed.

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.

Nomenclatural and taxonomic notes on Acroglochin and its position in Chenopodiaceae s.str.

Betoideae is a monophyletic group currently comprising five genera (Aphanisma, Beta, Hablitzia, Oreoblitum, and Patellifolia) and 11‒16 species. Acroglochin was formerly also included in subfam. Betoideae by various authors, although recently molecular data demonstrated that this genus is probably an ancient lineage basal to the remaining Betoideae. Although Acroglochin is also separated from both chorological and morphological viewpoints and some authors suggested its segregation in a separate subfamily, this proposal is premature, and discussion on that is presented here. A complete nomenclatural treatment of A. persicarioides, the only currently recognized species of Acroglochin, is provided, including all known heterotypic and homotypic synonyms. The names Lecanocarpus, Acroglochia, Blitanthus, Amaranthus acroglochin, Am. cauliflorus, Am. chenopodioides, Am. diandrus, Am. persicarioides, Boehmeria amaranthus, Blitanthus nepalensis, Acroglochia chenopodioides, Acroglochin schraderianum, Chenopodium pakistanicum Aellen were investigated. The name Lecanocarpus is a heterotypic synonym of Acroglochin, Acroglochia is an invalid name, and Blitanthus (initially published as nomen nudum) is illegitimate. Types for Acroglochin chenopodioides, Ac. obtosufolium, Amaranthus acroglochin, Am. cauliflorus, Am. diandrus, Am. persicarioides, and Boehmeria amaranthus were designated based on specimens deposited at B, E, GB, and LE. Blitanthus nepalensis, Acroglochia chenopodioides, Acroglochin schraderianum were not validly published (Arts. 36.1b, 38.1, 38.2), while the name Chenopodium pakistanicum Aellen occurred only on a specimen label (herbarium W). Finally, notes on the morphology and distribution of Acroglochin are provided.

On the nomenclature of Chenopodium pallidum and Atriplex schugnanica (Chenopodiaceae / Amaranthaceae sensu APG) and the perils of epitypification

In 2014 Sukhorukov &amp; Kushunina taxonomically restored the forgotten name Chenopodium pallidum applicable to a Himalayan taxon and designated its lectotype (a specimen in P) and also an epitype (in MW). However, in 2015 they published a correction to their article and demonstrated that the lectotype of C. pallidum in fact belongs to Atriplex and is most probably conspecific with A. schugnanica. The new combination Atriplex pallida was proposed, with A. schugnanica cited in its synonymy. The species of Chenopodium accepted by Sukhorukov &amp; Kushunina in 2014 as C. pallidum was described in 2015 as C. harae Sukhor. (as “harai”), with its holotype in MW being the same specimen as the epitype of C. pallidum. However, when introducing these nomenclatural novelties, the authors did not apply properly the provisions of the ICN, according to which the rejection of an epitype (as long as its supported type retains its status) is extremely complicated, or almost impossible without conservation. Moreover, the application of a name is ultimately established by its epitype, not by the type the epitype supports (in this case, the lectotype). Following the relevant articles of the ICN, it is concluded that (1) Chenopodium pallidum, by its epitypification (but not lectotypification), is the correct name for a Himalayan species of Chenopodium (despite the fact that its lectotype in P belongs to Atriplex), (2) C. harae and Atriplex pallida are homotypic synonyms of C. pallidum; and (3) Atriplex schugnanica (if taxonomically accepted) is the correct name for a species of Atriplex from the Pamir, Karakoram, and Himalayas. It is concluded that plant taxonomists, in order to avoid nomenclatural confusion, should be extremely careful with epitypifications and should not propose epitypes without the utmost necessity. A proposal to amend the Code aimed at better regulation of the existing procedure of epitypification is desirable.

A revised conspectus of Uncaria (Rubiaceae)

AbstractThe outline revision of the genus Uncaria published by Ridsdale in 1978 is updated. Two taxa treated as synonyms by Ridsdale (U. ovata R.Br. ex Hook.f. and U. rhynchophylloides F.C.How) are recognised as good species. Three names are considered as synonyms of different taxa from those given by Ridsdale, so U. ovalifolia Roxb. is moved from U. acida (W.Hunter) Roxb. to U. sessilifructa Roxb., Nauclea rotundifolia Bartl. ex DC. and its homotypic synonyms are relocated to U. longiflora (Poir.) Merr. var. longiflora from Uncaria cordata f. insignis (Bartl. ex DC.) Ridsdale, and Uncaria forbesii Wernham is transferred from U. acida to U. callophylla Blume ex Korth. The names Cinchona kattukambar J.Koenig ex Retz., U. rhynchophylla (Miq.) Miq. and U. scandens (Sm.) Wall. were validated earlier than listed by Ridsdale. Lectotypes and neotypes are designated for various names.

Nomenclatural Proliferation and the Superabundance of Homotypic Synonyms in Grusonia (Opuntioideae, Cactaceae)

Nomenclatural proliferation is defined and characterized as a phenomenon of explosive increase in the number of names within a taxon. The monophyletic genus Grusonia illustrates how the instability in the generic concept for this group of species has produced a disproportionate increase in names. This large increase in the number of names is due mainly to treatments presenting new combinations at the generic level without any significant reduction in the number of species through synonymy, and shows the uncoupling of the generation of new names from the publication of new species. Three historical nomenclatural phases in Grusonia are identified showing that the majority of the new names were proposed before any molecular phylogenetic reconstruction had an impact on the systematics of the group. However, molecular systematics has played an important role for the delimitation of a monophyletic genus. The lack of a solid phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships was one factor that promoted the superabundance of homotypic synonyms for these 17 species of North American grusonioids. In the face of this phenomenon, which we refer to as nomenclatural proliferation, the subgeneric categories in the subfamily Opuntioideae are historically devalued.

Enterobacter aerogenes Hormaeche and Edwards 1960 (Approved Lists 1980) and Klebsiella mobilis Bascomb et al. 1971 (Approved Lists 1980) share the same nomenclatural type (ATCC 13048) on the Approved Lists and are homotypic synonyms, with consequences for the name Klebsiella mobilis Bascomb et al. 1971 (Approved Lists 1980).

Enterobacter aerogenes Hormaeche and Edwards 1960 (Approved Lists 1980) and Klebsiella mobilis Bascomb et al. 1971 (Approved Lists 1980) were placed on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names and were based on the same nomenclatural type, ATCC 13048. Consequently they are to be treated as homotypic synonyms. However, the names of homotypic synonyms at the rank of species normally are based on the same epithet. Examination of the Rules of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria in force at the time indicates that the epithet mobilis in Klebsiella mobilis Bascomb et al. 1971 (Approved Lists 1980) was illegitimate at the time the Approved Lists were published and according to the Rules of the current International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes continues to be illegitimate.

New Combinations and Transfers toOdontoglossumOncidiinae (Orchidaceae): Avoid Creating New Names

Abstract. A generic transfer of eight species from Oncidium to Odontoglossum is made here, supported by molecular and morphologic evidence. Homotypic synonyms are listed. These transfers make it possible to maintain a monophyletic genus Odontoglossum without creating any new generic names. Quotes from authors that favor a larger and morphologically indefinable Oncidium are included and responded to by the authors of this paper, who are in favor of maintaining a more conservative and traditional, as well user-friendly and visually workable taxonomic classification.

An inventory of the names of vascular plants endemic to Italy, their loci classici and types

The census of the loci classici of 1,400 Italian endemic vascular plants (i.e. not thriving elsewhere with the exception of Corsica and Malta) is here presented and described. The effective place of publication of accepted names, basionyms and homotypic synonyms were identified and critically verified. This often resulted in some change in authorship attribution and, in seven cases, in validation problems (Asperula cynanchica var. lactea var. nov., A. lactea comb. nov., Biscutella laevigata subsp. raffaelliana subsp. nov., Ferulago nodosa subsp. geniculata comb. &amp; stat. nov., Limonium tineoi comb. nov., L. usticanum sp. nov., Noccaea torreana comb. nov.). The geographic information on the loci classici was excerpted from the protologues, as well as information on typification for the taxa described before 1 January 1958. The names without holotype are 796. For 347 names a lecto- or neo-typification is available in literature, while 449 currently accepted taxa still need of type designation.

A new combination in Asian Clinopodium (Lamiaceae)

Clinopodium umbrosum (M.Bieb.) Koch (1849: 673) was originally described from Georgia. A broad view of this species, which ranges from the Mediterranean to East Asia, has been maintained by some authors employing this name (Cramer 1981, Leblebici 1982, Clement 1999) or one of its homotypic synonyms (e.g. Satureja umbrosa (M.Beib.) Scheele (1843: 577), Keng 1978). However, from the Himalayas eastward one or more different species have been recognised by others. The name C. repens (D.Don) Benth. in Wallich (1830: 66) has been used for the eastern element in two major Chinese floras (Wu &amp; Hsuan 1977, Li &amp; Hedge 1994), although it was not noted that this name was first validly used for a South American species, published by Vellozo in 1829 (Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1988), the year before Bentham transferred Thymus repens Don (1825: 113) to Clinopodium. Clinopodium repens (D.Don) Benth. in Wallich (1830: 66) is therefore an illegitimate later homonym and cannot be used. The next available synonym appears to be Ziziphora javanica Blume (1826: 822), described from Java. As there is no combination in Clinopodium for this basionym, I propose a new combination below:

Taxonomic identity and typification of selected names of North American Potamogetonaceae

Most names in North American Potamogetonaceae have not been typified. Details of typifications are given for 72 names based on North American material published in the genus Potamogeton mainly by North American botanists. All names are reviewed for their nomenclatural validity and legitimacy, and interpreted taxonomically. Holotypes are indicated for 31 names and previously declared lectotypes or neotypes are listed for eight names. Lectotypes are designated for 24 previously untypified names and step-2 lectotypifications are proposed for three names that were based on heterogeneous material. Type material for three Rafinesque names and one proposed by Wood have not been located. An annotated list provides collection data, type status, homotypic synonyms, and currently accepted names. Two names are excluded from Potamogeton, being based on species of Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae).

Corynebacterium ilicis is typified by ICMP 2608 =ICPB CI144, Arthrobacter ilicis is typified by DSM 20138 =ATCC 14264 =NCPPB 1228 and the two are not homotypic synonyms, and clarification of the authorship of these two species. Opinion 87

The Judicial Commission rules that the name Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al. 1961 is represented by the type strain ICMP 2608 =ICPB CI144 and is reported to be a plant-pathogenic species. Arthrobacter ilicis is represented by the type strain DSM 20138 =ATCC 14264 =NCPPB 1228 and is not a homotypic synonym of Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al. 1961, and is reported not to be a plant pathogen. The authorship is to be cited as Arthrobacter ilicis Collins et al. 1982 and typification and the description of this species are to be found in Collins et al. (1981) [Collins, M. D., Jones, D. & Kroppenstedt, R. M. (1981). Zentralbl Bakteriol Parasitenkd Infektionskr Hyg Abt I Orig C2, 318-323].