Valid publication:
Farfan M, Montes MJ, Marques AM. Reclassification of Sphingobacterium antarcticum Shivaji et al. 1992 as Pedobacter antarcticus comb. nov. and Pedobacter piscium (Takeuchi and Yokota 1993) Steyn et al. 1998 as a later heterotypic synonym of Pedobacter antarcticus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:863-868. 🇪🇸
IJSEM list:
Oren A, Garrity GM. Notification list. Notification that new names and new combinations have appeared in volume 64, part 3 of the IJSEM. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:1827-1829.
Nomenclatural status:
validly published under the ICNP
Taxonomic status:
correct name (and explicitly recommended for medical use)
homotypic synonym, validly published under the ICNP
Notes:
⏰ According to Farfan et al. (2014), this species is an earlier heterotypic synonym of Pedobacterpiscium (Takeuchi and Yokota 1993) Steyn et al. 1998.Publication:
Farfan M, Montes MJ, Marques AM. Reclassification of Sphingobacterium antarcticum Shivaji et al. 1992 as Pedobacter antarcticus comb. nov. and Pedobacter piscium (Takeuchi and Yokota 1993) Steyn et al. 1998 as a later heterotypic synonym of Pedobacter antarcticus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:863-868. 🇪🇸
⏰ According to Farfan et al. (2014), this species is an earlier heterotypic synonym of Sphingobacteriumpiscium Takeuchi and Yokota 1993.Publication:
Farfan M, Montes MJ, Marques AM. Reclassification of Sphingobacterium antarcticum Shivaji et al. 1992 as Pedobacter antarcticus comb. nov. and Pedobacter piscium (Takeuchi and Yokota 1993) Steyn et al. 1998 as a later heterotypic synonym of Pedobacter antarcticus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:863-868. 🇪🇸
😢 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 risk group for Germany has been imported on 2026-08-13. 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 1 time in PubMed until 2026-06-11.
🙆 This name is on the List of Recommended Names for bacteria of medical importance (LoRN) as the name to be applied to this species. The name is on LoRN because of the recorded risk group of the genus.
🧍 The genome of the type strain was sequenced as part of the GEBA (Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea) project.Publication:
Garcia-Lopez M, Meier-Kolthoff JP, Tindall BJ, Gronow S, Woyke T, Kyrpides NC, Hahnke RL, Goker M. Analysis of 1,000 Type-Strain Genomes Improves Taxonomic Classification of Bacteroidetes. Front Microbiol 2019; 10:2083. 🇩🇪
Assigned by:
Farfan M, Montes MJ, Marques AM. Reclassification of Sphingobacterium antarcticum Shivaji et al. 1992 as Pedobacter antarcticus comb. nov. and Pedobacter piscium (Takeuchi and Yokota 1993) Steyn et al. 1998 as a later heterotypic synonym of Pedobacter antarcticus. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2014; 64:863-868. 🇪🇸
Linking:
To permanently link to this page, use https://doi.org/10.83108/rn.791641Link copied to clipboard