This version is not peer-reviewed
Conservation of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and Rejection of Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kämpfer et al. 2014
: Received: 29 January 2020 / Approved: 2 February 2020 / Online: 2 February 2020 (06:56:32 CET)
A recent taxonomic study confirmed the synonymy of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 and Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918. As a result, both R. equi and C. hoagii were reclassified to Rhodococcus hoagii comb. nov. in application of the principle of priority of the Prokaryotic Code. Being R. equi a well-known animal and zoonotic human pathogen, and the name solidly established in the veterinary and medical literature, we and others argued that the nomenclatural change may cause error and confusion and be potentially perilous. We have now additionally found that the nomenclatural type of the basonym C. hoagii, ATCC 7005T, does not correspond with the original description of C. hoagii in the early literature. Its inclusion as the C. hoagii type on the Approved Lists 1980 results in a change in the characters of the taxon and in C. hoagii clearly designating two different bacteria. Moreover, ATCC 7005, the only strain in circulation under the name C. hoagii, does not have a well documented history; it is unclear why it was deposited as C. hoagii and a possible mixup with a Corynebacterium (Rhodococcus) equi isolate is a reasonable assumption. We therefore request the rejection of Rhodococcus hoagii as a nomen ambiguum, nomen dubium and nomen perplexum in addition to nomen periculosum, and conservation of the name Rhodococcus equi, according to Rules 56ab of the Code.
Rhodococcus equi; Rhodococcus hoagii; bacterial nomenclature; bacterial taxonomy; bacterial systematics
Biology and Life Sciences, Immunology and Microbiology
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.
* All users must log in before leaving a comment