Name: Novosphingobium subarcticum (Nohynek et al. 1996) Takeuchi et al. 2001

Category: Species

Proposed as: comb. nov.

Basonym: Sphingomonas subarctica Nohynek et al. 1996

Etymology: sub.arc’ti.cum. L. prep. sub, under, below; L. masc. adj. arcticus, northern, arctic; N.L. neut. adj. subarcticum, below the arctic, subartic, because the organism was isolated from a subarctic area, Finland

Pronunciation (Latin), gender: … sub-ARK-ti-kum, neuter

Type strain: CIP 105288; DSM 10700; HAMBI 2110; IFO 16058; JCM 10398; JCM 12332; KF1; NBRC 16058

Conduct genome-based taxonomy at

16S rRNA gene: X94102 Analyse FASTA

Valid publication: Takeuchi M, Hamana K, Hiraishi A. Proposal of the genus Sphingomonas sensu stricto and three new genera, Sphingobium, Novosphingobium and Sphingopyxis, on the basis of phylogenetic and chemotaxonomic analyses. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:1405-1417. 🇯🇵

IJSEM list: Anonymous. Notification list. Notification that new names and new combinations have appeared in volume 51, part 4 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:1621-1623.

Nomenclatural status: validly published under the ICNP

Taxonomic status: synonym (and not recommended for medical use)

Correct name: Novosphingobium resinovorum (Delaporte and Daste 1956) Lim et al. 2007

Risk group: 1

• Synonyms:

  • Name	Kind
    Pseudonovosphingobium resinovorum (Delaporte and Daste 1956) Wang et al. 2025	heterotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP
    Flavobacterium resinovorum Delaporte and Daste 1956 (Approved Lists 1980)	heterotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP
    Novosphingobium resinovorum (Delaporte and Daste 1956) Lim et al. 2007	heterotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP
    Sphingomonas subarctica Nohynek et al. 1996	homotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP

• Emendations:
  • Hördt et al. 2020 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. 🇩🇪 Oren A, Garrity GM. List of changes in taxonomic opinion no. 32. Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020; 70:4061-4090.

• Notes:
  • ⏲ According to Lim et al. (2007), this species is a later heterotypic synonym of Flavobacterium resinovorum Delaporte and Daste 1956 (Approved Lists 1980). Publication: Lim YW, Moon EY, Chun J. Reclassification of Flavobacterium resinovorum Delaporte and Daste 1956 as Novosphingobium resinovorum comb. nov., with Novosphingobium subarcticum (Nohynek et al. 1996) Takeuchi et al. 2001 as a later heterotypic synonym. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:1906-1908. 🇰🇷
  • ⏲ According to Lim et al. (2007), this species is a later heterotypic synonym of Novosphingobium resinovorum (Delaporte and Daste 1956) Lim et al. 2007. Publication: Lim YW, Moon EY, Chun J. Reclassification of Flavobacterium resinovorum Delaporte and Daste 1956 as Novosphingobium resinovorum comb. nov., with Novosphingobium subarcticum (Nohynek et al. 1996) Takeuchi et al. 2001 as a later heterotypic synonym. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:1906-1908. 🇰🇷
  • ⏲ According to Lim et al. (2007), this species is a later heterotypic synonym of Pseudonovosphingobium resinovorum (Delaporte and Daste 1956) Wang et al. 2025. Publication: Lim YW, Moon EY, Chun J. Reclassification of Flavobacterium resinovorum Delaporte and Daste 1956 as Novosphingobium resinovorum comb. nov., with Novosphingobium subarcticum (Nohynek et al. 1996) Takeuchi et al. 2001 as a later heterotypic synonym. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2007; 57:1906-1908. 🇰🇷
  • ❗ Novosphingobium subarcticum 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 Novosphingobium.
  • 🧬 The phylogenomic assignment score of this taxon is -0.04244 (N = 15).
  • 😷 The risk group for Canada has been imported on 2024-02-27. The full classification is: risk group = 1, note = "Security sensitive biological agent: No - Terrestrial animal pathogen under Canadian Food Inspection Agency authority: No". — The risk group for Germany has been imported on 2023-10-29. The full classification is: risk group = 1. — If in doubt, use the risk group given in the regulations for your country and, if these are not available, use the risk group given in the catalogue of the culture collection from which you have obtained or intend to obtain the strain.
  • 🎓 Name mentioned 3 times in PubMed until 2025-06-04.
  • 🙅 This name is on the List of Recommended Names for bacteria of medical importance (LoRN) as a synonym of the name to be applied to this species. The name is on LoRN because of the recorded risk group of the genus.
  • 🧍 According to Rules 27(3) and 30, this name is not validly published because the effective publication makes no reference to the deposit of the type strain in any publicly accessible service collection, but deposits in at least two recognized culture collections in different countries are documented. According to the Judicial Opinion 81, Novosphingobium subarcticum (Nohynek et al. 1996) Takeuchi et al. 2001 is to be considered to be validly published. Publication: Euzeby JP, Tindall BJ. Status of strains that contravene Rules 27(3) and 30 of the Bacteriological Code. Request for an opinion. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2004; 54:293-301. 🇫🇷

Parent taxon: Novosphingobium Takeuchi et al. 2001

Assigned by: Takeuchi M, Hamana K, Hiraishi A. Proposal of the genus Sphingomonas sensu stricto and three new genera, Sphingobium, Novosphingobium and Sphingopyxis, on the basis of phylogenetic and chemotaxonomic analyses. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; 51:1405-1417. 🇯🇵

Linking: To permanently link to this page, use https://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/novosphingobium-subarcticumCopy to clipboardLink copied to clipboard

Record number: 778919