ICSP response to 'Science depends on nomenclature, but nomenclature is not science'

The dynamic history of prokaryotic phyla: discovery, diversity and division

Here, I review the dynamic history of prokaryotic phyla. Following leads set by Darwin, Haeckel and Woese, the concept of phylum has evolved from a group sharing common phenotypes to a set of organisms sharing a common ancestry, with modern taxonomy based on phylogenetic classifications drawn from macromolecular sequences. Phyla came as surprising latecomers to the formalities of prokaryotic nomenclature in 2021. Since then names have been validly published for 46 prokaryotic phyla, replacing some established names with neologisms, prompting criticism and debate within the scientific community. Molecular barcoding enabled phylogenetic analysis of microbial ecosystems without cultivation, leading to the identification of candidate divisions (or phyla) from diverse environments. The introduction of metagenome-assembled genomes marked a significant advance in identifying and classifying uncultured microbial phyla. The lumper-splitter dichotomy has led to disagreements, with experts cautioning against the pressure to create a profusion of new phyla and prominent databases adopting a conservative stance. The Candidatus designation has been widely used to provide provisional status to uncultured prokaryotic taxa, with phyla named under this convention now clearly surpassing those with validly published names. The Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB) has offered a stable, standardized prokaryotic taxonomy with normalized taxonomic ranks, which has led to both lumping and splitting of pre-existing phyla. The GTDB framework introduced unwieldy alphanumeric placeholder labels, prompting recent publication of over 100 user-friendly Latinate names for unnamed prokaryotic phyla. Most candidate phyla remain 'known unknowns', with limited knowledge of their genomic diversity, ecological roles, or environments. Whether phyla still reflect significant evolutionary and ecological partitions across prokaryotic life remains an area of active debate. However, phyla remain of practical importance for microbiome analyses, particularly in clinical research. Despite potential diminishing returns in discovery of biodiversity, prokaryotic phyla offer extensive research opportunities for microbiologists for the foreseeable future.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? A call for community participation in the governance of the SeqCode

Codes of nomenclature that provide well-regulated and stable frameworks for the naming of taxa are a fundamental underpinning of biological research. These Codes themselves require systems that govern their administration, interpretation and emendment. Here we review the provisions that have been made for the governance of the recently introduced Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from Sequence Data (SeqCode), which provides a nomenclatural framework for the valid publication of names of Archaea and Bacteria using isolate genome, metagenome-assembled genome or single-amplified genome sequences as type material. The administrative structures supporting the SeqCode are designed to be open and inclusive. Direction is provided by the SeqCode Community, which we encourage those with an interest in prokaryotic systematics to join.

Proposals to revise the Statutes of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes

The International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes serves to administer the rules of prokaryotic nomenclature via the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, ensures the publication of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, and works to represent the interests of the microbiological disciplines regarding prokaryotic nomenclature. The functions and mechanisms of operation of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) are defined in its Statutes, which were last revised in 2019. As members of the 2020-2023 and the 2023-2026 ICSP Executive Board and the Judicial Commission, we propose here some further revisions to help improve the clarity and functionality of the Statutes.

Judicial Opinion 129

Opinion 129 addresses the status of Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980). The name has the category 'division' and was included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, although that category had previously been removed from the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 revision onwards). When the category 'phylum' was introduced into the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) in 2021, equivalence between 'phylum' and 'division' was not stipulated. Since the definition of the taxonomic categories and their relative order is one of the principal tasks of every code of nomenclature, the inclusion of Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 in the Approved Lists was an error. The name is either not validly published or illegitimate because its category is not covered by the ICNP. If Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) was a validly published phylum name, it would be illegitimate because it would contravene Rule 8, which does not permit any deviation from the requirement to derive a phylum name from the name of the type genus. Since Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 is also part of a 'misfitting megaclassification' recognized in Opinion 128, the name is rejected, without any pre-emption regarding a hypothetically validly published name Firmicutes at the rank of phylum. Gracilicutes Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) and Anoxyphotobacteriae Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) are also rejected. The validly published phylum names have a variety of advantages over their not validly published counterparts and cannot be replaced with ad hoc names suggested in the literature. To ease the transition, it is recommended to mention the not validly published phylum names which strongly deviate in spelling from their validly published counterparts along with the latter in publications during the next years.

The best of both worlds: a proposal for further integration of Candidatus names into the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes

The naming of prokaryotes is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and partially by the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants (ICN). Such codes must be able to determine names of taxa in a universal and unambiguous manner, thus serving as a common language across different fields and activities. This unity is undermined when a new code of nomenclature emerges that overlaps in scope with an established, time-tested code and uses the same format of names but assigns different nomenclatural status values to the names. The resulting nomenclatural confusion is not beneficial to the wider scientific community. Such ambiguity is expected to result from the establishment of the 'Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from DNA Sequence Data' ('SeqCode'), which is in general and specific conflict with the ICNP and the ICN. Shortcomings in the interpretation of the ICNP may have exacerbated the incompatibility between the codes. It is reiterated as to why proposals to accept sequences as nomenclatural types of species and subspecies with validly published names, now implemented in the SeqCode, have not been implemented by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP), which oversees the ICNP. The absence of certain regulations from the ICNP for the naming of as yet uncultivated prokaryotes is an acceptable scientific argument, although it does not justify the establishment of a separate code. Moreover, the proposals rejected by the ICSP are unnecessary to adequately regulate the naming of uncultivated prokaryotes. To provide a better service to the wider scientific community, an alternative proposal to emend the ICNP is presented, which would result in Candidatus names being regulated analogously to validly published names. This proposal is fully consistent with previous ICSP decisions, preserves the essential unity of nomenclature and avoids the expected nomenclatural confusion.

Valid publication of four additional phylum names

The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) now includes the phylum category. For the purpose of the valid publication of their names under the ICNP, we consider here four phyla. Slightly modified descriptions of 'Abditibacteriota' Tahon et al. 2018 and 'Desulfobacterota' Waite et al. 2020 are provided to meet the requirements of the ICNP for phylum names. Methanobacteriota is proposed as a substitute for 'Euryarchaeota' Garrity and Holt 2021, while Nanobdellota is proposed to replace 'Nanoarchaeota' Huber et al. 2002, based on the genus Nanobdella Kato et al. 2022.

Renewing Linnaean taxonomy: a proposal to restructure the highest levels of the Natural System

During the last century enormous progress has been made in the understanding of biological diversity, involving a dramatic shift from macroscopic to microscopic organisms. The question now arises as to whether the Natural System introduced by Carl Linnaeus, which has served as the central system for organizing biological diversity, can accommodate the great expansion of diversity that has been discovered. Important discoveries regarding biological diversity have not been fully integrated into a formal, coherent taxonomic system. In addition, because of taxonomic challenges and conflicts, various proposals have been made to abandon key aspects of the Linnaean system. We review the current status of taxonomy of the living world, focussing on groups at the taxonomic level of phylum and above. We summarize the main arguments against and in favour of abandoning aspects of the Linnaean system. Based on these considerations, we conclude that retaining the Linnaean Natural System provides important advantages. We propose a relatively small number of amendments for extending this system, particularly to include the named rank of world (Latin alternative mundis) formally to include non-cellular entities (viruses), and the named rank of empire (Latin alternative imperium) to accommodate the depth of diversity in (unicellular) eukaryotes that has been uncovered. We argue that in the case of both the eukaryotic domain and the viruses the cladistic approach intrinsically fails. However, the resulting semi-cladistic system provides a productive way forward that can help resolve taxonomic challenges. The amendments proposed allow us to: (i) retain named taxonomic levels and the three-domain system, (ii) improve understanding of the main eukaryotic lineages, and (iii) incorporate viruses into the Natural System. Of note, the proposal described herein is intended to serve as the starting point for a broad scientific discussion regarding the modernization of the Linnaean system.

Proposal to include the categories kingdom and domain in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes

Observations made after introduction of the phylum category into the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) indicate that the addition of a category should usually be conducted before informal names at that rank become widely used. It is thus investigated whether it would be beneficial to add further categories. An extrapolation from the number of names validly published under the ICNP at the distinct principal categories was conducted. This extrapolation indicated that two principal ranks above phylum rank would also harbour validly published names if the according categories were covered by the ICNP. The appropriate categories would be kingdom and domain, regarded as separate principal ranks. The benefit from introducing these ranks is confirmed by analysing the previous taxonomic activity above phylum level and the nomenclatural problems associated with this activity. An etymological examination of the way names of taxa above genus level are formed under distinct codes of nomenclature provides hints for implementing additional categories. According emendations of the ICNP are proposed to include kingdom and domain as a means of further stabilizing prokaryotic nomenclature.

Judicial Opinions 112–122

Opinion 112 denies the request to place Seliberia Aristovskaya and Parinkina 1963 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names because the information provided is insufficient. For the same reason, Opinion 113 denies the request to reject Shewanella irciniae Lee et al. 2006 and Opinion 114 denies the request to reject the name Enterobacter siamensis Khunthongpan et al. 2014. Opinion 115 rejects the epithet of Moorella thermoautotrophica (Wiegel et al. 1981) Collins et al. 1994, which is regarded as a nomen confusum. To assess the consequences of Rule 8, Opinion 116 revisits names of taxa above the rank of genus which should comprise the stem of the name of a nomenclatural type and a category-specific ending but fail to do so. Such names should be orthographically corrected if the sole error is the inadvertent usage of an incorrect stem or be regarded as illegitimate if otherwise. The necessary corrections are made for a number of names. In Opinion 117, the request to designate Methylothermus subterraneus Hirayama et al. 2011 as the type species of the genus Methylothermus is denied because an equivalent action compatible with the Code was already conducted. In Opinion 118, the possible orthographical correction of the name Flaviaesturariibacter is treated, as are the analogous cases of Fredinandcohnia and Hydrogeniiclostidium . The genus names are corrected to Flaviaestuariibacter, Ferdinandcohnia and Hydrogeniiclostridium , respectively. Opinion 119 concludes that assigning Actinomycetales Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) as nomenclatural type of the class Actinobacteria Stackebrandt et al. 1997 would not render that name legitimate if Rule 8 remained retroactive. The request is granted but Actinomycetales is also assigned as type of Actinomycetes Krassilnikov 1949 (Approved Lists 1980). In Opinion 120, the possible orthographical correction of the name Amycolatopsis albidoflavus is treated. It is grammatically corrected to Amycolatopsis albidoflava. Six names which could according to Rule 61 be grammatically corrected by anyone are also corrected. Opinion 121 denies the request to revise Opinion 69 and notes that Opinion 69 does not have the undesirable consequences emphasized in the request. In Opinion 122, the request to reject various taxon names of Mollicutes proposed in 2018 is denied because it is based on misinterpretations of the Code, which are clarified. Alternative ways to solve the perceived problems are outlined. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

Harmonizing Prokaryotic Nomenclature: Fixing the Fuss over Phylum Name Flipping

Lloyd and Tahon recently criticized proposed bacterial phylum nomenclature changes (K.G. Lloyd, G. Tahon, Nat Rev Microbiol 20:123-124, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00684-2) precipitated by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP)’s official recognition of phylum nomenclature rules. Here, we extend the critique. While we applaud bringing consistency to phylum names, we prognosticate what this minute but momentous change entails for the future of microbial nomenclature and how this will sow confusion among researchers. Several pitfalls of the proposed ICSP framework-based nomenclature are also detailed, including (i) improper type genus name and suffix usage, (ii) loss of Bacteria/Archaea distinctions, (iii) disruption of major phylum name prefixes, and (iv) absence of organism name prevalidation. Finally, we suggest new names for the key bacterial phyla Proteobacteria (Proteobacteriota), Firmicutes (Firmicuteota), Actinobacteria (Actinobacteriota), and Tenericutes (Tenericuteota), while keeping the archaeal phylum names Crenarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, and Euryarchaeota. Together, these changes will help researchers attain chaos-free uniform nomenclature.