Subscribe to our newsletter
To receive updates from LPSN every few months, sign up to our mailing list.
Genus Xinfangfangia
Name: Xinfangfangia Hu et al. 2018
Etymology: Xin.fang.fang’i.a. N.L. fem. n. Xinfangfangia, named to honor a Chinese microbiologist Xin-Fang Fang
Gender: feminine (stem: Xinfangfangi-)
Type species: Xinfangfangia soli Hu et al. 2018
Conduct genome-based taxonomy of genus at TYGS
Valid publication:
Hu Q, Zhang L, Hang P, Zhou XY, Jia WB, Li SP, Jiang JD. Xinfangfangia soli gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a diuron-polluted soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2622-2626. 
IJSEM list:
Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification list. Notification that new names and new combinations have appeared in volume 68, part 8 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:3394-3396.
Nomenclatural status: validly published under the ICNP
Taxonomic status: correct name
-
Notes:
-
🧕 Hu et al. (2018) assigned this genus to the family Rhodobacteraceae Garrity et al. 2006.
Publication:
Hu Q, Zhang L, Hang P, Zhou XY, Jia WB, Li SP, Jiang JD. Xinfangfangia soli gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a diuron-polluted soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2622-2626.
-
🚋 The type species of this genus has alternatively been placed in the genus Tabrizicola Tarhriz et al. 2014.
Publication:
Ma T, Xue H, Piao C, Liu C, Yang M, Bian D, Li Y. Reclassification of 11 Members of the Family Rhodobacteraceae at Genus and Species Levels and Proposal of Pseudogemmobacter hezensis sp. nov. Front Microbiol 2022; 13:849695.
- 😢 The terminology used by the authors is in line with many other taxonomic studies and does not negatively affect their main results; some improvements may nevertheless be possible. Contrasting the term "chemotaxonomic" with "phenotypic" is not recommended. Whether taxa can have "members" is debatable. See the LPSN phylogeny page for details. Publication: Göker M. What can genome analysis offer for bacteria? In: Bridge P, Smith D, Stackebrandt E (eds), Trends in the systematics of bacteria and fungi, CAB International, Wallingford, 2021, p. 255-281.
- 🎰 The BRCs most frequently used for deposits in this group are: KCTC: 2; CIP: 1; LMG: 1; CCM: 1; CCTCC: 1; GDMCC: 1.
-
🧕 Hu et al. (2018) assigned this genus to the family Rhodobacteraceae Garrity et al. 2006.
Publication:
Hu Q, Zhang L, Hang P, Zhou XY, Jia WB, Li SP, Jiang JD. Xinfangfangia soli gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a diuron-polluted soil. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2622-2626.
Number of child taxa with a validly published and correct name: 3
Number of child taxa with a validly published name, including synonyms: 3
Total number of child taxa: 3
-
Child taxa:
-
Name Nomenclatural status Taxonomic status Xinfangfangia humi Kämpfer et al. 2019 validly published under the ICNP correct name Xinfangfangia pollutisoli Mu et al. 2024 validly published under the ICNP correct name Xinfangfangia soli Hu et al. 2018 validly published under the ICNP correct name
-
Parent taxon: Paracoccaceae Liang et al. 2022
Assigned by:
Parte AC, Sarda Carbasse J, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Reimer LC, Goker M. List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:5607-5612.
Linking: To permanently link to this page, use https://lpsn.dsmz.de/genus/xinfangfangiaLink copied to clipboard
Record number: 520376
This LPSN page was printed on 2025-05-21 20:51:01