Prokaryote Nomenclature
Aharon Oren, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Nomenclature of prokaryotes is regulated by the provisions of the International Code
of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. To obtain standing in the nomenclature, names of
new taxa must be validly published according to the rules of that Code.
Introduction
As of 4 October 2007, the names of 7255 different species of
prokaryotes have been validly published in accordance
with the internationally accepted rules of nomenclature, as
fixed in the International Code of Nomenclature of Pro-
karyotes (ICNP, ‘The Bacteriological Code’) (Lapage
et al., 1992).
Nomenclature is the assignment of names to the taxo-
nomic groups defined during classification, and this article
explores the question how species, genera, families and
higher taxa within the prokaryote world (Bacteria and
Archaea combined) are named. Issues of prokaryote no-
menclature are tightly linked to issues of their systematics/
taxonomy and classification, but these terms do not have
identical meanings. Systematics is the study of organisms
with the ultimate object of characterizing and arranging
them in an orderly manner. The term ‘taxonomy’, often used
synonymously with ‘systematics’ can be defined as the the-
ory and practice of classifying organisms into groups (taxa)
on the basis of similarities and relationships. Systematics
includes the study of the evolutionary and phylogenetic re-
lationships of the organisms. Such studies lead to the es-
tablishment of schemes of classification, i.e. the orderly
arrangement of units into groups. Nomenclature is then
used to properly name the taxonomic units thus established,
from species and subspecies to classes and kingdoms.
The basic unit of classification of all living organisms is
the species. Although over 7000 different species of pro-
karyotes have been described and named according to the
established rules discussed later, there still is no universally
recognized definition of what a prokaryote species is. To the
botanist and the zoologist the definition of the concept
‘species’ presents relatively few problems. In the plant and
the animal world a species is generally defined as a popu-
lation of individuals that can interbreed under natural
ELS subject area: Microbiology
How to cite:
Oren, Aharon (July 2008) Prokaryote Nomenclature. In: Encyclopedia of
Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0021150
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES & 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
Advanced article
Article Contents
. Introduction
. Prokaryote Nomenclature: A Historical Overview
. The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes
. How Prokaryote Names are Formed
. Effective and Valid Publication of Names of Prokaryotes
. The Special Case of Cyanobacteria Nomenclature
Online posting date: 15th July 2008
conditions, produce fertile offspring and that is reproduc-
tively isolated from other populations. Such a definition is
useless in the case of the prokaryotes that show no sexual
reproduction. One may circumscribe the species as ‘a dis-
tinct group of strains that have certain distinguishing fea-
tures and that generally bear a close resemblance to one
another in the more essential features of organization’, or
‘an assemblage of clonal populations that share a high deg-
ree of phenotypic similarity, coupled with an appreciable
dissimilarity from other assemblages of the same general
kind’. Such definitions provide little practical information
on how close that resemblance and similarity should be for
two strains to be classified in the same species, what features
of organization should be considered essential, and what
degree of dissimilarity is required for two strains to warrant
classification in different species. See also: Species Concepts
Based on the experience of the last 20 years, a pragmatic
definition of the prokaryote species has emerged, based on
the recommendations published in 1987 by a committee of
experts, and updated a few years ago (Stackebrandt et al.,
2002). The species concept is based on a ‘polyphasic’
approach, which includes description of diagnostic phe-
notypic features combined with genomic properties. Indi-
vidually many of the phenotypic and chemotaxonomic
characteristics used as diagnostic properties are insufficient
to delineate species, but together they provide sufficient
descriptive information. The most widely used genomic
property included in descriptions of new species is the se-
quence of the small subunit ribosomal ribonucleic acid
(RNA) gene, and many classification schemes are based on
this gene. However, species delineation should not be based
on the sequence of a single gene only. A widely accepted
criterion, based on the complete genome, defines a pro-
karyotic species as a group of strains, including the type
strain (see later), that share at least 70% total genome
DNA–DNA hybridization and have less than 58C DTm
(=the difference in the melting temperature between the
homologous and the heterologous hybrids formed under
standard conditions). The delineation value of 70% is arti-
ficial, but has proven satisfactory in most cases. Deoxyri-
bonucleic acid (DNA) relatedness values between 30% and
70% indicate a moderate degree of relationship, often
parallel to the extent of the genus. There are cases in the
literature of species and even genera that share more than
70% DNA–DNA similarity. Thus, the genera of enteric
1
 Prokaryote Nomenclature
bacteria Escherichia and Shigella share more than 85%
similarity. However, for pragmatic reasons the separation
into two species is maintained. In spite of the great ad-
vances made in recent years in genomic analysis and the
development of other modern approaches to characterize
prokaryote isolates, DNA–DNA hybridization combined
with a thorough phenotypic characterization is still the best
criterion for species delineation (Stackebrandt et al., 2002).
See also: Phylogeny Based on 16S rRNA/DNA
Description of a species should ideally be based on a
comparative study of a large number of isolates to define
the degree of variation of certain properties within the
boundaries of the species. In practice, however, more than
half of the new species descriptions published in recent
years were based on the study of single isolates.
Prokaryote Nomenclature: A Historical
Overview
When Antoni van Leeuwenhoek first saw prokaryotes in the
last decades of the seventeenth century, he did not name the
tiny organisms that he observed in his primitive mi-
croscopes. The first attempts towards a nomenclature of
the prokaryotes probably stem from the work of Christian
Ehrenberg (1795–1877) in the third decade of the nineteenth
century. Ehrenberg divided the prokaryotes known to
him on the basis of morphological criteria into four
genera: Bacterium (straight rigid filaments; three species),
Vibrio (twisted filaments; nine species), Spirochaeta (non-
rigid spiral filaments; one species) and Spirillum (rigid spi-
ral filaments; three species). A more elaborate classification
of the bacteria proposed in 1875 by Ferdinand Cohn
(1828–1898) which recognized six genera, classified in four
‘tribes’: the tribe Sphaerobacteria with the genus Micrococ-
cus, the tribe Microbacteria with the genus Bacterium, the
tribe Desmobacteria with genera Bacillus and Vibrio and the
tribe Spirobacteria with genera Spirillum and Spirochaeta.
See also: Cohn, Ferdinand Julius; Leeuwenhoek, Antoni
van; Systematics: Historical Overview
In the first half of the twentieth century techniques for
cultivation of different types of prokaryotes, aerobes as well
as anaerobes, were developed, and many new prokaryotes
were isolated, described and named. In an attempt to keep
track of the ever-increasing number of published names of
prokaryotes, a handbook was established named Bergey’s
Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, published in eight
editions between 1923 and 1974. It rapidly became clear that
different names had often been given to identical or very
similar bacteria. Synonyms abounded, and the nomenclature
became ever more confusing. The publication of the Index
Bergeyana – An Annotated Alphabetic Listing of Names of the
Taxa of the Bacteria (Buchanan et al., 1966), which con-
tained approximately 28 900 entries, shows the urgent need
felt at the time to establish order in the increasing chaos.
An entirely new start was made in prokaryote nomen-
clature in 1980 with the publication of the ‘Approved lists of
2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES & 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
bacterial names’ (Skerman et al., 1980). Rule 24a of the
‘Bacteriological Code’ (see later) states: ‘Priority of publi-
cation dates from 1 January 1980. On that date all names
published prior to 1 January 1980 and included in the Ap-
proved Lists of Bacterial Names of the ICSB [the Interna-
tional Committee on Systematics of Bacteria] are treated for
all nomenclatural purposes as though they had been validly
published for the first time on that date’. With the publi-
cation of the ‘Approved Lists’, which contained approxi-
mately 2500 species names, all other earlier published names
lost their validity. Central registration and indexing of new
names validly published after 1 January 1980, according to
the rules of the ‘Bacteriological Code’ (Lapage et al., 1992;
see later), ensured that the number of species, genera, fam-
ilies and orders of prokaryotes whose names have been val-
idly published is known at any time (Table 1). For each taxon
a nomenclatural type has to be designated; the type is that
element of the taxon with which the name is permanently
associated. All relevant information is published in the
International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Micro-
biology (IJSEM) (until 1999: the International Journal of
Systematic Bacteriology, IJSB). The information is also
available online at http://www.bacterio.cict.fr, a web site
established and maintained by Dr. Jean Euzéby of the
University of Toulouse, France (Euzéby, 1997). This site is
updated monthly with the publication of the latest issue of
IJSEM. This makes it easy for the bacteriologist to check
whether a certain organism has been described and named
in accordance to the internationally agreed criteria. In con-
trast, a botanist who wants to establish whether a certain
plant has been recorded before in the literature has to search
the scientific journals and books as far back as 1753, the year
in which Linnaeus published his Species Plantarum, and
there exists no central registration of plant names validly
published under the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (ICBN, the ‘Botanical Code’). Central reg-
istration of prokaryote names has also enabled the estab-
lishment of a ‘quality control’ mechanism to ensure that
names of taxa newly added to the list would be properly
formed. See also: Codes of Nomenclature
Table 1 The number of different prokaryote taxa described
with names with standing in the nomenclature, as of 4 October
2007. Derived from http://www.bacterio.cict.fr
Number of phylaa 28
Number of classesb 67
Number of orders 105
Number of families 233
Number of genera 1616c
Number of species 7255d
a
b
Nomenclature of phyla is not covered by the Bacteriological Code.
Nomenclature of classes is not covered by the Bacteriological Code.
c
Of which approximately 85 are considered as synonyms.
d
This number represents the total number of names of different species
validly published: 8441 validly published names, minus 1108 new
combinations, minus 11 nomina nova, minus 67 homotypic synonyms.

The International Code of
Nomenclature of Prokaryotes
Nomenclature of the prokaryotes is regulated by the rules of
the ‘Bacteriological Code’. The first edition was published
in 1948 as The International Code of Nomenclature of
Bacteria and Viruses. The last published version of the
International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, as ap-
proved at the Ninth International Congress of Microbio-
logy, Moscow, 1966 and revised in 1990 (Lapage et al.,
1992) has since been amended at subsequent meetings of the
International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes
(ICSP, see later). A new revised version of the Code is cur-
rently in preparation – to be named ‘International Code of
Nomenclature of Prokaryotes’. The ‘Bacteriological Code’
presents the formal framework according to which pro-
karyotes are named and according to which existing names
can be changed or rejected. It covers the rules for the naming
of species and subspecies, genera, families and orders
of prokaryotes. No provisions are made by the Code for
the naming of the higher taxa: classes, phyla and kingdoms.
See also: Codes of Nomenclature
The rules that regulate the nomenclature of prokaryotes,
as published in the ‘Bacteriological Code’, are set by the
ICSP (before 2000: the ICSB). This committee, a constit-
uent part of the International Union of Microbiological
Societies, discusses nomenclatural problems that have
arisen in different groups of prokaryotes and proposes
changes and amendments to the rules of the ‘Bacteriological
Code’. The Judicial Commission of the ICSP deals with
problematic cases in prokaryote nomenclature and renders
judicial decisions in instances of controversy about the
validity of a name, identity of type strains and cases of
emerging problems with the interpretation of the rules of
the ‘Bacteriological Code’. It also may propose amend-
ments to the Code and consider exceptions that may be
needed to certain rules. The ICSP has also established
taxonomic subcommittees (currently 28) that discuss
nomenclatural problems of specific groups of prokaryotes.
The minutes of the meetings of the ICSP, its Judicial Com-
mission and its taxonomic subcommittees are published in
IJSEM. Information on the ICSP, its current officers and its
subcommittees can be found at: http://www.the-icsp.org.
It must be stressed that prokaryote nomenclature is thus
governed by internationally approved rules and regula-
tions, but that there is no official classification of pro-
karyotes. The classification provided in Bergey’s Manual of
Systematic Bacteriology is widely used among microbiolo-
gists, but was never intended to obtain official status. Gen-
eral Consideration 4 of the ‘Bacteriological Code’ clearly
states: ‘Rules of nomenclature do not govern the delimita-
tion of taxa nor determine their relations. The rules are
primarily for assessing the correctness of the names applied
to defined taxa; they also prescribe the procedures for cre-
ating and proposing new names’. The Code deals with all
prokaryotes: the nomenclature of the Archaea and the Bac-
teria are governed by the same rules. See also: Archaea
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES & 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
Prokaryote Nomenclature
How Prokaryote Names are Formed
‘Microbiologists who have occasion to use the scientific
names of the microorganisms with which they deal gener-
ally prefer to use correct names and to use them correctly’.
Thus opens the foreword to the first edition (1948) of the
‘Bacteriological Code’. The Code contains many rules and
recommendations to guide authors describing new species,
genera, families, etc. of prokaryotes and how to properly
name the new taxa. Similar to the eukaryotic organisms the
species of prokaryotes have generic names and specific ep-
ithets derived from Latin, latinized Greek or latinized mod-
ern words or names. Principle 3 of the Code states: ‘The
scientific names of all taxa are Latin words treated as Latin
regardless of their origin. They are usually taken from Latin
or Greek’. In the binomial system, as introduced by Carolus
Linnaeus for the plant world in the 1750s, each organism is
known by a combination consisting of the name of the ge-
nus followed by a single specific epithet. Another important
statement in the Code is Principle 4: ‘The primary purpose
of giving a name to a taxon is to supply a means of referring
to it rather than to indicate the characters or the history of
the taxon’. See also: Linnaeus, Carl (Linné)
The main rules for the formation of correct genus and
species names for prokaryotes are found in Rules 10a and
12c of the ‘Bacteriological Code’:
(Rule 10a): ‘The name of a genus _ is a substantive, or
an adjective used as a substantive, in the singular
number and written with an initial capital letter. The
name may be taken from any source and may even be
composed in an arbitrary manner. It is treated as a Latin
substantive’.
(Rule 12c): ‘A specific epithet may be taken from any
source and may even be composed arbitrarily.
A specific epithet must be treated in one of the three
following ways:
As an adjective that must agree in gender with the ge-
neric name.
As a substantive (noun) in apposition in the nominative
case.
As a substantive (noun) in the genitive case’.
Each description of a new species should include a pro-
posal for its name and explain the etymology of that name.
Practical recommendations on how to name a new pro-
karyote can be found in the Orthography appendix to the
‘Bacteriological Code’ and in a review paper by Trüper
1999. To illustrate the implementation of Rules 10a and 12c
of the Code, here are a few examples of how genus and
species names are formed.
Some genus names are derived from a single Latin stem:
Vibrio, Bacillus or from a single Greek stem: Clostridium,
Thermus; others combine two or more Latin stems: Lacto-
bacillus, Sulfolobus, two or more Greek stems: Haemophilus,
Halococcus, Ectothiorhodospira (‘the red spiral with sulfur
outside’), or are based on a combination of Latin and Greek
stems: Flavobacterium, Halorubrum, Halolactibacillus, etc.
3
 Prokaryote Nomenclature
Quite a few genus names are latinized personal names:
Escherichia, Shigella, Pfennigia, Pasteuria, etc. named to
honour the contributions of Theodor Escherich, Kiyoshi
Shiga, Norbert Pfennig and Louis Pasteur to the science of
microbiology. Not always are such names derived from the
family name of the investigator: the genus name Erwinia
honours Erwin F Smith (1854–1929), and Simkania was
formed from the personal name of Simona Kahane. It is
recommended to refrain from naming genera after persons
unconnected with bacteriology or at least natural sciences
(recommendation 10a(1) of the ‘Bacteriological Code’). An
example of a genus name formed in an arbitrary manner is
Desemzia, based on the initials of the DSMZ, the Deutsche
Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen, the
German culture collection of microorganisms. Another in-
teresting arbitrary name is the cyanobacterial genus Nostoc,
named in the fifteenth century by Paracelsus based on the
old English Nosthryl (nostril) and the German equivalent
Nasenloch (about special problems connected with naming
cyanobacteria, see later).
In the past, the nomenclature of prokaryotes was inde-
pendent of botanical and zoological nomenclature. As a
result, there are a number of names of genera that have
homonyms in eukaryote world. Thus, Bacillus is not only
the name of a bacterium (Firmicutes) but also of an insect,
and Proteus is not only a member of the Enterobacteriaceae
but also an amphibian inhabiting caves. The genus names
Bacillus and Proteus appeared on the ‘Approved Lists’ of
1980, and therefore have standing in the prokaryote no-
menclature. With the modification of Principle 2 of the
‘Bacteriological Code’ in 1999, nomenclature of pro-
karyotes is no longer independent of the nomenclature of
other groups of organisms. Therefore, when in 2005 it was
proposed to name a new genus in honour of Antoni van
Leeuwenhoek, the discoverer of the prokaryote world, the
name Leeuwenhoekia could not be used as it was already
used for a mite; the name Leeuwenhoekiella was chosen
instead. See also: Leeuwenhoek, Antoni van
Many specific epithets are formed from Latin or latinized
adjectives: albus (white), aureus (golden), subtilis (slender),
halophilus (salt-loving), etc. (masculine forms; in accord-
ance to Rule 12(c)1 the gender should agree with the
gender of the generic name). Participles are also treated as
adjectives: ferrooxidans (iron-oxidizing), fermentans (fer-
menting), natans (floating), etc. In most cases, these adjec-
tives reflect some evident phenotypic property of the
species. Another category of specific epithets based on
Latin or latinized adjectives is the ‘geographical’ names re-
flecting the location where the species was first isolated.
These adjectives generally carry the suffix -ensis (masculine,
feminine) or -ense (neutre): Halorubrum sodomense for the
biblical city of Sodom, Haloferax lucentense for Alicante,
Spain, named Lucentum in Roman times and Thermo-
anaerobacterium aotearoense (one of the longest names ever
devised for a prokaryote!) named after Aotearoa – ‘the land
of the long white cloud’, being the Maori name for New
Zealand. In recent years, the number of such ‘geographical’
names has strongly increased, and in some cases the
4 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES & 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
creation of such names has been misused for geopoliti-
cal or other purposes not related to the science of micro-
biology. It can only be hoped that the recent call to reduce
the creation of such ‘geographical’ names and to eradi-
cate the phenomenon of ‘localimania’ (Trüper, 2005) will
have the desired result.
Substantives ‘in apposition’ in the nominative case,
sensu Rule 12(c)2 are relatively rare in prokaryote nomen-
clature. Examples are Desulfovibrio gigas (‘the giant’) and
Paenibacillus fonticola (‘inhabitant of a fountain’). The ar-
bitrary specific epithed in Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron also
belongs to this category. Far more abundant is the use of a
substantive in the genitive case (Rule 12(c)3), examples be-
ing Streptococcus suis (‘of the hog’), Corynebacterium diph-
theriae (‘of diphtheria’), Pediococcus acidilactici (‘of lactic
acid’) and Clostridium carnis (‘of flesh’). Famous microbi-
ologists of the past and the present can also be honoured
with similarly formed specific epithets: Thiobaca trueperi
(‘of Hans Trüper’), Methanosphaera stadtmanae (‘of
Therese Stadtman’), etc.
Although the ‘Bacteriological Code’ aims at stability of
names (Principle 1(1) of the Code), and the useless creation
of names is to be avoided (Principle 1(3)), changes in no-
menclature do occur regularly as our understanding of
prokaryote taxonomy, phylogeny, etc. advances. Rules 34
and 41 of the Code describe the procedure of transferring
species to another genus while retaining the original specific
epithet as a combinatio nova (comb. nov.). Thus, the bac-
terium originally described as Vibrio harveyi in 1936
was renamed Beneckea harveyi in 1973, to be restored to
V. harveyi in 1981. When the genus Ralstonia was estab-
lished in 1996 to accommodate two species of Burkholderia
and one species of Alcaligenes, the species Alcaligenes
eutrophus named in 1969 was renamed Ralstonia eutropha.
When in view of the novel insights into the taxonomy of the
group the genus Ralstonia was split in 2004, R. eutropha
became Wautersia eutropha. Similarly, Bacillus stearother-
mophilus became Geobacillus stearothermophilus, and there
are many more such cases.
More information on prokaryote nomenclature can be
found in handbooks such as Bergey’s Manual of Systematic
Bacteriology, published since 1984 as the successor of
Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology and The
Prokaryotes published in three editions since 1981, in the
original articles describing new taxa in IJSEM, as well as in
the already mentioned web site http://www.bacterio.cict.fr.
Effective and Valid Publication of
Names of Prokaryotes
Since the publication of the ‘Approved Lists’ in 1980
(Skerman et al., 1980), IJSEM (prior to 1980: IJSB) is the
only framework in which new names of taxa can be pub-
lished to obtain standing in the nomenclature of pro-
karyotes (‘valid publication’ according to Rules 27–32 of
the Code). One way to achieve valid publication of the new

name of species, genera, etc. is by publication of the
description of the new taxa in that journal, while meeting
different criteria as determined by the Code. For new spe-
cies a nomenclatural type has to be designated, which is the
name-bearer of that species and is the reference specimen
for the name. Whenever a new prokaryote species is
described, the authors are obliged to deposit the type strain
as a viable and pure culture in at least two publicly acces-
sible culture collections located in different countries for
safekeeping, and make subcultures available to any inter-
ested scientist for further study. For valid publication of
the name, the description should fulfil further criteria as
determined by the ICSP.
Descriptions of new taxa and proposals for new names
can also be published in other journals. This is known as
‘effective publication’ of the names (Rule 25 of the Code).
Names thus published can only obtain standing in the
nomenclature when they are included in the ‘Validation
Lists’ (‘Lists of new names and new combinations previ-
ously effectively, but not validly, published’) that appear
periodically in IJSEM. Authors of papers in which names
have been effectively published and who wish to validate
the names must submit copies of the original publication,
together with proof that all criteria for valid publication
have been met, such as deposition of the type strain in two
culture collections, availability of the type strain without
restrictions to the scientific community, etc. The request for
validation of the name will then be handled by one of the
associate editors of the journal together with the list editor
(Tindall et al., 2006).
Under the current rules of the ‘Bacteriological Code’,
valid publication of a species name is possible only for
prokaryotes that can be cultured and maintained in pure
culture. To provide the opportunity to name species
that have been relatively well characterized but cannot
at present be maintained in pure culture, the category
‘Candidatus’ has been instituted, a provisional status that
can be established for a putative taxon of an incompletely
described prokaryote, awaiting its future cultivation and
valid description of the name (Murray and Stackebrandt,
1995). As of 4 October 2007, 84 such ‘Candidati’ have been
described in IJSEM/IJSB. The category ‘Candidatus’ is not
covered by rules of the ‘Bacteriological Code’, and there-
fore a name included in the category ‘Candidatus’ cannot
be validly published.
The Special Case of Cyanobacteria
Nomenclature
The phylum Cyanobacteria presents special nomenclature
problems, as the group is also included by the botanists
under the rules of the ‘Botanical Code’ as Cyanophyta or
blue-green algae. Historically, the group has always been
covered by the provisions of the ‘Botanical Code’. In 1962,
Roger Stanier and Cornelis van Niel, in their classic paper
on ‘The concept of a bacterium’ wrote: ‘The distinctive
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES & 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
Prokaryote Nomenclature
property of bacteria and blue–green algae is the prokaryo-
tic nature of their cells’. Soon after, bacteriologists
proposed to include the group under the rules of the ‘Bac-
teriological Code’. However, the two Codes are very differ-
ent and are incompatible in a number of essential aspects:
1. One of the key provisions under the ‘Bacteriological
Code’ is central registration/indexing of names validly
published, centralized in IJSEM. Under the ‘Botanical
Code’ few restrictions exist on the journal in which new
names may be validly published, and as a result, the
existing botanical nomenclature information is widely
scattered. Central registration/indexing does not yet
exist. In most cases priority of publication dates back to
1753, but for two specific groups of Cyanophyta later
dates are in use: 1886 and 1892.
2. Under the rules of the ‘Bacteriological Code’, the
nomenclatural type of a species is a living type strain,
maintained in pure culture. In contrast, type specimens
of species under the ‘Botanical Code’ may not be living
plants or cultures but herbarium specimens, illustra-
tions, or in some cases cultures preserved in a metabo-
lically inactive state.
3. The ‘Bacteriological Code’ is not independent of the
‘Botanical Code’. Therefore, it is currently impossible
to describe under the ‘Bacteriological Code’ a new spe-
cies of a genus whose name was earlier validly published
under the ‘Botanical Code’. Such genus names have no
valid status under the rules of the ‘Bacteriological
Code’, making the new combination illegitimate.
The 1980 approved list of bacterial names (Skerman
et al., 1980) did not contain any names of Cyanobacteria,
and only a few genus and species names of cyanobacteria
have since been validly published under the ‘Bacteriologi-
cal Code’. Attempts are underway to solve the nomencla-
ture problems of this group and to find a solution that
will satisfy bacteriologists and botanists alike (Oren and
Tindall, 2005). See also: Cyanobacteria
References
Buchanan RE, Holt JG and Lessel EF Jr (1966) Index Bergeyana.
An Annotated Alphabetical Listing of the Names of the Taxa of
the Bacteria. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Euzéby J (1997) List of bacterial names with standing in nomen-
clature: a folder available on the internet. International Journal
of Systematic Bacteriology 47: 590–592.
Lapage SP, Sneath PHA, Lessel EF Jr et al. (1992) International
Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1990 revision). Washington,
DC: American Society of Microbiology.
Murray RGE and Stackebrandt E (1995) Taxonomic note: im-
plementation of the provisional status Candidatus for incom-
pletely described prokaryotes. International Journal of
Systematic Bacteriology 45: 186–187.
Oren A and Tindall BJ (2005) Nomenclature of the cyanophyta/
cyanobacteria/cyanoprokaryotes under the International Code
5
 Prokaryote Nomenclature
of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Algological Studies 117:
39–52.
Skerman VBD, McGowan V and Sneath PHA (1980) Approved
lists of bacterial names. International Journal of Systematic
Bacteriology 30: 225–420.
Stackebrandt E, Frederiksen W, Garrity GM et al. (2002) Report
of the ad hoc committee for the re-evaluation of the species
definition in bacteriology. International Journal of Systematic
and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 1045–1047.
Tindall BJ, Kämpfer P, Euzéby J et al. (2006) Valid publication of
names of prokaryotes according to the rules of nomenclature:
past history and current practice. International Journal of Sys-
tematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 56: 2715–2720.
Trüper HG (1999) How to name a prokaryote? Etymological
considerations, proposals and practical advice in prokaryotic
nomenclature. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 23: 231–249.
Trüper HG (2005) Is ‘localimania’ becoming a fashion for pro-
karyote taxonomists? International Journal of Systematic and
Evolutionary Microbiology 55: 1753.
Further Reading
Brenner DJ, Staley JT and Krieg NR (2001) Classification of
procaryotic organisms and the concept of bacterial speciation.
In: Boone DR and Castenholz RW (eds) Garrity, GM (editor-
in-chief) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd edn,
6 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES & 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
vol. 1. The Archaea and the Deeply Branching and Phototrophic
Bacteria, pp 27–31. New York: Springer.
Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E et al. (eds) (2006) The Pro-
karyotes. A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria: Ecophysiology
and Biochemistry, 7 vols. New York: Springer.
Garrity GM (editor-in-chief) (5 vols; vols 1 and 2 were published
in 2001 and) (2005) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriol-
ogy, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.
Oren A (2004) Prokaryote diversity and taxonomy: present status
and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society. Series B 559: 623–638.
Rosselló-Mora R and Amann R (2001) The species concept for
prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 25: 39–67.
Sneath PHA (2001) Bacterial nomenclature. In: Boone DR,
Castenholz RW and Garrity GM (eds) Bergey’s Manual of
Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd edn, vol. 1. The Archaea and the
Deeply Branching and Phototrophic Bacteria, pp. 83–88. New
York: Springer.
Trüper HG (2001) Etymology in nomenclature of prokaryotes.
In: Boone DR and Castenholz RW (eds) Garrity, GM (editor-
in-chief) Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd edn,
vol. 1. The Archaea and the Deeply Branching and Phototrophic
Bacteria, pp 89–99. New York: Springer.
Wayne LG, Brenner DJ, Colwell RR et al. (1987) Report of the ad
hoc committee on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial
systematics. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology
37: 463–464.