Göker Markus
Leibniz Institute DSMZ - German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Inhoffenstrasse 7B, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2022 Dec;72(12). doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.005638.
The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) recently underwent some major modifications regarding the higher taxonomic ranks. On the one hand, the phylum category was introduced into the ICNP, which rapidly led to the valid publication of more than forty names of phyla. On the other hand, a decision on the retroactivity of Rule 8 regarding the names of classes was made, which removed most of the nomenclatural uncertainty that had affected those names during the last decade. However, it turned out that a number of names at the ranks of class, order and family are either not validly published or are validly published but illegitimate, although these names occur in the literature and are based on the type genus of a phylum with a validly published name. A closer examination of the literature for these and similar cases indicates that the names are unavailable under the ICNP either because of minor formal errors in the original descriptions, because another name should have been adopted for the taxon when the name was proposed, because of taxonomic uncertainties that were settled in the meantime, or because the names were placed on the list of rejected names. The purpose of this article is to fill the gaps by providing the missing formal descriptions and to ensure that the resulting taxon names are attributed to the original authors who did the taxonomic work.
《国际原核生物命名法规》(ICNP)最近在高级分类阶元方面进行了一些重大修订。一方面,“门”这一分类类别被引入ICNP,这迅速导致四十多个门的名称有效发表。另一方面,针对规则8关于纲名称的追溯力做出了一项决定,这消除了过去十年中影响这些名称的大部分命名不确定性。然而,结果表明,一些纲、目和科等级别的名称要么未有效发表,要么虽有效发表但不合法,尽管这些名称出现在文献中且基于一个具有有效发表名称的门的模式属。对这些以及类似案例的文献进行更仔细的研究表明,根据ICNP,这些名称不可用,原因要么是原始描述中存在小的形式错误,要么是在提出该名称时该分类单元应采用另一个名称,要么是在此期间已解决的分类不确定性,要么是这些名称被列入了被拒绝名称列表。本文的目的是通过提供缺失的形式描述来填补空白,并确保由此产生的分类单元名称归属于进行分类工作的原始作者。