Valid publication:
Feng GD, Zhang XJ, Yang SZ, Li AZ, Yao Q, Zhu H. Transfer of Sphingorhabdus marina, Sphingorhabdus litoris, Sphingorhabdus flavimaris and Sphingorhabdus pacifica corrig. into the novel genus Parasphingorhabdus gen. nov. and Sphingopyxis baekryungensis into the novel genus Novosphingopyxis gen. nov. within the family Sphingomonadaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2147-2154. 🇨🇳
IJSEM list:
Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification list. Notification that new names and new combinations have appeared in volume 70, part 3 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:3583-3587.
Nomenclatural status:
validly published under the ICNP
Taxonomic status:
correct name
Notes:
🧕 Wang et al. (2025) assigned this genus to the family Sphingorhabdaceae Wang et al. 2025.Publication:
Wang Y, You H, Kong YH, Sun C, Wu LH, Kim SG, Lee JS, Xu L, Xu XW. Genomic-based taxonomic classification of the order Sphingomonadales. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2025; 75:6769. 🇨🇳
🚋 The type species of this genus has alternatively been placed in the genus Sphingopyxis Takeuchi et al. 2001.Publication:
Kim BS, Lim YW, Chun J. Sphingopyxis marina sp. nov. and Sphingopyxis litoris sp. nov., isolated from seawater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2008; 58:2415-2419. 🇰🇷
🚋 The type species of this genus has alternatively been placed in the genus Sphingorhabdus Jogler et al. 2013.Publication:
Jogler M, Chen H, Simon J, Rohde M, Busse HJ, Klenk HP, Tindall BJ, Overmann J. Description of Sphingorhabdus planktonica gen. nov., sp. nov. and reclassification of three related members of the genus Sphingopyxis in the genus Sphingorhabdus gen. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2013; 63:1342-1349. 🇩🇪
🙄 This taxon name is occasionally misprinted (or affected by an OCR error) in some sources as: "Parashingorhabdus".
🧬 The phylogenomic assignment score of this taxon is -0.02251 (N = 4).
🎰 The BRCs most frequently used for deposits in this group are: KCTC: 5; DSM: 4; JCM: 3; KMM: 1; NRIC: 1; VTCC: 1.
🧍 The 16S rRNA gene tree shown in Feng et al. (2020) is unresolved at the backbone and does not provide evidence for a dissection of Sphingorhabdus. Other trees are not shown in the manuscript. The only phylogenetic evidence found is in Fig. S3 in the online supplementary material. However, this analysis is does provide evidence. – The analysis by Hördt et al. (2020) did not disagree, it just left the question open because some genome sequences were not included in this analysis.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. 🇩🇪
Subdivision:
Number of child taxa with a validly published and correct name: 6 Number of child taxa with a validly published name, including synonyms: 6 Total number of child taxa: 6
Assigned by:
Feng GD, Zhang XJ, Yang SZ, Li AZ, Yao Q, Zhu H. Transfer of Sphingorhabdus marina, Sphingorhabdus litoris, Sphingorhabdus flavimaris and Sphingorhabdus pacifica corrig. into the novel genus Parasphingorhabdus gen. nov. and Sphingopyxis baekryungensis into the novel genus Novosphingopyxis gen. nov. within the family Sphingomonadaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:2147-2154. 🇨🇳
Linking:
To permanently link to this page, use https://doi.org/10.83108/rn.4964Link copied to clipboard