Hyphomonas sediminis sp. nov., isolated from marine sediment

A Gram-staining-negative, aerobic and pear-shaped bacterial strain, designated WL0036^T, was isolated from coastal sediment sample collected in Nantong city, Jiangsu province of China (120° 51' 13″ E, 32° 6' 26″ N) in October 2020. Strain WL0036^T was found to grow at 20-37 °C (optimum, 28 °C) with 0-9.0% NaCl (optimum, 2.5-4.0%) and displayed alkaliphilic growth with the pH range of pH 6.0-10.0 (optimum, pH 7.0-8.0). The polar lipids profile of strain WL0036^T included phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, glycolipid and an unidentified lipid. The major isoprenoid quinone was determined to be Q-11 and the major fatty acids were C_16:0, 11-methyl-C_18:1ω7c, and summed features 8 (C_18:1ω6c and/or C_18:1ω7c). The G + C content of genomic DNA was 61.8%. Phylogenetic trees constructed based on 16S rRNA gene sequence and bac120 gene set (a collection of 120 single-copy protein sequences prevalent in bacteria) indicted that strain WL0036^T clustered with strains Hyphomonas neptunium ATCC 15444^T and H. polymorpha PS728^T. The average nucleotide identities between strain WL0036^T and strains H. neptunium ATCC 15444^T and H. polymorpha PS728^T were 80.7% and 81.2%, respectively. Strain WL0036^T showed 22.8% and 23.2% of digital DNA-DNA hybridization identities with H. neptunium ATCC 15444^T and H. polymorpha PS728^T, respectively. As inferred from the phenotypic and genotypic characteristics and the phylogenetic trees, strain WL0036^T ought to be recognized as a novel species in genus Hyphomonas, for which the name Hyphomonas sediminis sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is WL0036^T (= MCCC 1K05843^T = JCM 34658^T = GDMCC 1.2413^T).

Judicial Opinions 103–111

In Opinion 103, the request to place the name Spirillum volutans Ehrenberg 1832 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied because a neotype may be designated. Similarly, because a neotype may be designated, in Opinion 104 the request to place the name Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied. In Opinion 105, it is emphasized that the name Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 does not contravene the Code. The request to orthographically correct Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 to Rhodoligotrophus corrig. Fukuda et al. 2012 is denied. Opinion 106 addresses two Requests for an Opinion and results in the placement of the epithet hoagii in Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918 (Approved Lists 1980) and Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kämpfer et al. 2014 on the list of rejected specific and subspecific epithets. Since this removes all known available earlier synonyms of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 (Approved Lists 1980), the request to conserve the epithet equi in this name is denied. In Opinion 107, Thermomicrobium fosteri Phillips and Perry 1976 (Approved Lists 1980) is placed on the list of rejected names as a nomen dubium et confusum. Opinion 108 denies the request to place Hyphomonas rosenbergii Weiner et al. 2000 on the list of rejected names because the information provided to the Judicial Commission is not sufficient to draw a conclusion on this matter. In Opinion 109, which addresses three Requests for an Opinion, the Judicial Commission denies the requests to place the names Bacillus aerius Shivaji et al. 2006, Bacillus aerophilus Shivaji et al. 2006 and Bacillus stratosphericus Shivaji et al. 2006 on the list of rejected names. Instead, it is concluded that these three names had not met the requirements for valid publication. Likewise, the Judicial Commission concludes in Opinion 110 that the name Actinobaculum massiliense corrig. Greub and Raoult 2006 had not met the requirements for valid publication. The Judicial Commission reaffirms in Opinion 111 that Methanocorpusculum parvum Zellner et al. 1988 is the nomenclatural type of Methanocorpusculum Zellner et al. 1988 and further emphasizes that the species was not in danger of losing this status. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes: Minutes of the Meeting of 4 August 2021

The minutes of the online meeting of the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes that was held on 4 August 2021 by video conference are presented.

What does Rule 18c of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria really say?

A number of recent Requests for an Opinion have cited Rule 18c of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria as the Rule governing setting a time limit on the search for a neotype strain. This Rule only governs what happens when a neotype is proposed and not what happens when the original type appears to have been lost and a neotype is not found. It is appropriate to emphasize this issue and to examine what other alternatives are available.