Endangered prokaryotic names

At the meetings of the Judicial Commission at the IUMS Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology Congress in San Francisco in 2005, the Judicial Commission of the International Committee for Systematics of Prokaryotes considered the Request for an Opinion published in 2004 by Euzéby and Tindall and issued the Judicial Opinion 81.
References:
1 EUZÉBY (J.P.) and TINDALL (B.J.): Status of strains that contravene Rules 27(3) and 30 of the Bacteriological Code. Request for an Opinion. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2004, 54, 293-301.
Original article in IJSEM Online
2 JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATICS OF PROKARYOTES: Status of strains that contravene Rules 27 (3) and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Opinion 81. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2008, 58, 1755-1763.
Opinion 81 in IJSEM Online

Fifty species names are considered not be validly published, since deposit in two different collections in two different countires has not been documented [Rule 27(3) and 30]. These endangered prokaryotic names are listed below in the table 1.

The Opinion 81 issued by the Judicial Commission provides a solution whereby names listed in table 1 may be considered to be validly published.
According to the Opinion 81 issued by the Judicial Commission, authors or these names, or other scientists who wish to have these names validly published, should submit evidence of the deposit of the type strain in additional collections to the List Editor (either directly or via the IJSEM Editorial Office) before the next meeting of the Judicial Commission in Sapporo, Japan, in 2011. After that time, the names will be ruled not to have been validly published. If, after that deadline, the authors or other scientists wish to have these namee validly published, this may be done by confirming that the names are in accordance with the requirements of the Code and either by requesting valid publication via the Validation Lists or by inclusion of the proposal in an original article in the IJSEM. The details of valid publication will then make reference to those publications. If authors or other scientists feel that an exception should be granted to Rule 30, requiring deposit of the type in two different collections in two different countries, they should contact the Editorial Office of the IJSEM.

Consequently, to avoid confusion in prokaryotic nomenclature it is important that scientists deposit the type strains in additional collections.

Table 1 : Names considered not to be validly published, since deposit in two different collections in two different countries has not been documented

Species names	Type species of the genus
Actinoplanes friuliensis Aretz et al. 2001	No
Alicyclobacillus acidocaldarius subsp. rittmannii Nicolaus et al. 2002	No
Alkalispirillum mobile Rijkenberg et al. 2002	Yes
Azoarcus buckelii Mechichi et al. 2002	No
Borrelia sinica Masuzawa et al. 2001	No
Chlorobaculum limnaeum Imhoff 2003	No
Chlorobaculum parvum Imhoff 2003	No
Chlorobaculum thiosulfatiphilum Imhoff 2003	No
Chlorobium clathratiforme (Szafer 1911) Imhoff 2003	No
Chlorobium luteolum (Schmidle 1901) Imhoff 2003	No
Desulfomicrobium orale Langendijk et al. 2001	No
Desulfomonile limimaris Sun et al. 2001	No
Desulfovibrio dechloracetivorans Sun et al. 2001	No
Geoglobus ahangari Kashefi et al. 2002	Yes
Hahella chejuensis Lee et al. 2001	Yes
Halorhodospira neutriphila Hirschler-Réa et al. 2003	No
Heliobacterium sulfidophilum Bryantseva et al. 2001	No
Heliorestis baculata Bryantseva et al. 2001	No
Hydrogenobacter subterraneus Takai et al. 2001	No
Ketogulonicigenium vulgare Urbance et al. 2001	Yes
Methylomicrobium buryatense Kaluzhnaya et al. 2001	No
Microcystis aeruginosa Otsuka et al. 2001	Yes
Neochlamydia hartmannellae Horn et al. 2001	Yes
Neorickettsia risticii (Holland et al. 1985) Dumler et al. 2001	No
Neorickettsia sennetsu (Misao and Kobayashi 1956) Dumler et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas aestuarii Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas communis Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas eutropha Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas halophila Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas marina Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas nitrosa Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas oligotropha Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrosomonas ureae Koops et al. 2001	No
Nitrospira moscoviensis Ehrich et al. 2001	No
Paenibacillus granivorans Van der Maarel et al. 2001	No
Prochlorococcus marinus Chisholm et al. 2001	Yes
Prochlorococcus marinus subsp. marinus Chisholm et al. 2001	No
Propionispora vibrioides Biebl et al. 2001	Yes
Prosthecochloris vibrioformis (Pelsh 1936) Imhoff 2003	No
Rhodoferax antarcticus Madigan et al. 2001	No
Rickettsia felis Bouyer et al. 2001	No
Roseospirillum parvum Glaeser and Overmann 2001	Yes
Selenihalanaerobacter shriftii Switzer Blum et al. 2001	Yes
Syntrophus aciditrophicus Jackson et al. 2001	No
Thauera aminoaromatica Mechichi et al. 2002	No
Thauera phenylacetica Mechichi et al. 2002	No
Thermococcus sibiricus Miroshnichenko et al. 2001	No
Thermoproteus uzoniensis Bonch-Osmolovskaya et al. 2001	No
Thioflavicoccus mobilis Imhoff and Pfennig 2001	Yes
Tropheryma whipplei La Scola et al. 2001	Yes

*: Thermococcus atlanticus Cambon-Bonavita et al. 2004 is not cited in the table 1b of the Opinion 81.
Thermococcus atlanticus (type strain MA898 = CIP 107420 = DSM 15226) appears in Validation List 99. However, the type strain CIP 107420 was never available and this name was deleted from Validation List 99. As a consequence, Thermococcus atlanticus was not validly published [Rules 27(3) and 30]. However, according to the Judicial Opinion 81, Thermococcus atlanticus Cambon-Bonavita et al. 2004 is considered to be validly published, since deposit in a second culture collection in a different country has been documented (strain JCM 16138).