homotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP
Nomenclatural type of the genus Gaetbulicola Yoon et al. 2010.Publication:
Yoon JH, Kang SJ, Jung YT, Oh TK. Gaetbulicola byunsanensis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from tidal flat sediment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:196-199.
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. Using the term "phylogenetic data" (or equivalent) for sequence data is not advocated. 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.
Gaetbulicolabyunsanensis is the correct name 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 Gaetbulicola.
In the April 2012 issue of the IJSEM, Yoon et al. propose to transfer Gaetbulicola byunsanensis Yoon et al. 2010 in the genus Marivita as Marivita byunsanensis (Yoon et al. 2010) Yoon et al. 2012, comb. nov. However, the type strain is not cited in the description of the new combination ("protologue"). So, according to Rules 16, 27(3) and 30(3b), the name Marivita byunsanensis is not validly published.Publication:
Parker CT, Tindall BJ, Garrity GM. International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2019; 69:S1-S111.