Etymology:Te.pid.a.mor.pha’ce.ae.N.L. masc. n.Tepidamorphus, type genus of the family; L. fem. pl. n. suff.-aceae, ending to denote a family; N.L. fem. pl. n.Tepidamorphaceae, the Tepidamorphus family
Effective publication:
Hordt A, Lopez MG, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Schleuning M, Weinhold LM, Tindall BJ, Gronow S, Kyrpides NC, Woyke T, Goker M. Analysis of 1,000+ Type-Strain Genomes Substantially Improves Taxonomic Classification of Alphaproteobacteria. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:468. 🇩🇪
IJSEM list:
Oren A, Garrity GM. Validation list no. 194. List of new names and new combinations previously effectively, but not validly, published. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4043-4049.
Nomenclatural status:
validly published under the ICNP
Taxonomic status:
correct name
Notes:
🚃 The type genus of this family has alternatively been placed in the family Rhodobiaceae Garrity et al. 2006.Publication:
Kumar PA, Srinivas TN, Manasa P, Madhu S, Shivaji S. Lutibaculum baratangense gen. nov., sp. nov., a proteobacterium isolated from a mud volcano. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012; 62:2025-2031. 🇮🇳
🎰 The BRCs most frequently used for deposits in this group are: KCTC: 6; MCCC: 4; DSM: 2; NBRC: 2; LMG: 1; B: 1; CCUG: 1.
Subdivision:
Number of child taxa with a validly published and correct name: 4 Number of child taxa with a validly published name, including synonyms: 4 Total number of child taxa: 4