❗ Erwiniacarnegieana is the correct name instead if this species is regarded as a separate species (i.e., if its nomenclatural type is not assigned to another species whose name is validly published, legitimate and not rejected and has priority) within a separate genus Erwinia.
✏ The authority of the taxon name (Standring) deliberately differs from the authors of the publication (Lightle et al.).
😷 The risk group for Swiss Confederation has been imported on 2024-02-01. The full classification is: risk group = 2, note = "PP?". — The risk group for Germany has been imported on 2023-10-29. The full classification is: risk group = 1.
🎓 Name mentioned 0 times in PubMed until 2024-03-27.
🧍 Plant pathogenic according to Bull et al. (2007).Publication:
Bull CT, De Boer SH, Denny TP, Firrao G, Fischer Le Saux M, Saddler GS, Scortichini M, Stead DE, Takikawa Y. Comprehensive list of names of plant pathogenic bacteria, 1980-2007. Journal of Plant Pathology 2010; 92:551-592.
🧍 Nom. dub., Opinion IJSB 38:133.Publication:
Alcorn SM, Orum TV. Request for an opinion. Rejection of the names Erwinia carnegieana Standring 1942 and Pectobacterium carnegieana (Standring 1942) Brenner, Steigerwalt, Miklos and Fanning 1973. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1988; 38:132-134.
🧍 In a request for an opinion, S.M. Alcorn and V.T. Orum [1] presented evidence that the type strain of Erwinia carnegieana (syn. Pectobacterium carnegieana) is a contaminant and that no culture corresponds to the description attached to this name and requested that both of these species names be rejected as nomen dubium.Publication:
Alcorn SM, Orum TV. Request for an opinion. Rejection of the names Erwinia carnegieana Standring 1942 and Pectobacterium carnegieana (Standring 1942) Brenner, Steigerwalt, Miklos and Fanning 1973. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1988; 38:132-134.
🧍 In a request for an opinion, S.M. Alcorn and V.T. Orum [1] presented evidence that the type strain of Erwinia carnegieana (syn. Pectobacterium carnegieana) is a contaminant and that no culture corresponds to the description attached to this name and requested that both of these species names be rejected as nomen dubium. The Judicial Commission [2, 3] concluded that the species will simply disappear from use without the need to place the names on the list of nomina rejicienda.Publication:
Wayne LG. JUDICIAL COMMISSION: Minutes of the meeting, 14 September 1990, Osaka, Japan. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1991; 41:185-187.
🧍 See also:Publication:
Wayne LG. Actions of the Judicial Commission of the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology on requests for opinions published between January 1985 and July 1993. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1994; 44:177-178.