The replies to this post have dealt with one issue of taxonomy, viz.
whether a new name is validly published. The new name mentioned in the
post *is* a valid name for the reasons given by the responders. However,
the old name is also a valid name. Which of these two valid names should
you use? Whether the old genus should be merged with the new one is a
matter of taxonomic *judgement*, not a matter of rules of nomenclature.
If you, as a taxonomist, agree that the two genera should be joined, then
use the new name. Otherwise use the old one. (In the specific case of
the organism you referred to, my advice is to use the new names).
It may seem confusing that two different names could be correct, but it
has to be this way. You wouldn't want any old numbskull to be able to
change the name of an organism for no good reason, yet sometimes (like the
paper you mentioned) new information indicates changes should be made.
Taxonomy has to be left to taxonomic judgement. Eventually, in
publications such as Bergey's Manuals, you can take advantage of refereed
judgements of prominent taxonomists to interpret the intricacies of
taxonomy, with the presentation of a taxonomy that is widely adopted.
--
David R. Boone
http://www.ese.ogi.edu/ese_docs/boone.html
Professor of Environmental Microbiology
Oregon Graduate Institute, Portland
(503) 690-1146
>lkista at UNM.EDU (Linnea Ista) wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.91.960716143033.273572A-100000 at musca.unm.edu>...
> Hi everyone!
>> I have a question concerning taxonomy. I have just found out that the
> organism (Deleya marina) I am working on has been "unified" into
another
> genus. This is according to the April issue of Int. J. Sys. Bacteriol.
at
> least. Does this one citation mean that the name has been changed or
> should I wait until it is changed at ATCC or somewhere until I start
> calling it by its new name in publications. I am a little hesitant to
> change right away.
> If anyone could help, I would appreciate it!
> Thanks!
> Linnea
>
