Reconciliation Commission (RC) denied the request for an exception to validate the species name _Paceibacter normanii_ and its corresponding genus and higher taxa names.

[tvtv195]

Dear Reconciliation Commission,

Thank you for this update, and for your explanation that Paceibacter normanii and its corresponding genus and higher taxa names fall under the recently amended Rule 23d that protects Candidatus higher taxon names and also genus names until 1 January 2027, allowing time to obtain a higher-quality genome sequence to validate the corresponding taxon names. This means, as you detail in your answer, that even if a synonym is published under the ICNP after January 1, 2022, the Candidatus name will take priority if it can be validated before 2027.

However, you also argue that the RC does not see a need to validate this name (Paceibacter) at present, as it can only serve as a nomenclatural type for the family, while the order and class names have already been validly published names under the ICNP (Minisyncoccales and Minisyncoccia).

So, on one hand, you argue that there is currently no need to validate Paceibacter normanii and its corresponding candidatus genus and higher taxa names since these names are protected under Rule 23d. On the other hand, you argue that the higher taxon names, in particular the order and class name (Minisyncoccales and Minisyncoccia) have already been published, by referring to a 2025 paper, and that these names have now priority over the proposed candiatus names of this order and class (Paceibacterales, Paceibacteria).

So now we are wondering, does this mean that Rule 23d does not apply after all to the names Paceibacterales and Paceibacteria? Or does it mean, that if we produce a higher quality genome before 1 January 2027, that we can then validate Paceibacter normanii and its corresponding genus and higher taxa names up to the rank of class, as originally proposed, and so also restore the order and class names Paceibacterales and Paceibacteria?

It would be great to get clarification on this matter.
All the best, Chris Rinke

Originally posted by @tpriest0 in #3 (comment)

[tpriest0]

Dear Chris,

Thank you for pointing out, and apologies for the inconsistency in our first response. Indeed, you are correct.

Due to Rule 23d, 'Paceibacter' is protected and, if a higher quality genome becomes available for 'Paceibacter normanii' before 1 January 2027, then it would have precedence also at the higher taxonomic ranks. That is, the genus and species names would be validated and the higher taxonomic ranks of order- and class-level would be changed to 'Paceibacterales' and 'Paceibacteria'. This will result in these higher taxonomic ranks having different correct names with standing in nomenclature under the SeqCode and the ICNP.

However, If no high-quality genome to serve as a type for the species 'Paceibacter normanii' is recovered before 1 January 2027, then the order and class names Minisyncoccales and Minisyncoccia would remain. Under this scenario, and at that time, we could consider whether an exception to the quality standards is justified for this taxon to validate the genus and species names using the medium-quality genome. If agreement to an exception is then made, the case for changing the order and class name based on the type genus would have to be reconsidered.

I hope that this is now clearer and please let us know if anything still needs to be clarified.

All the best
Taylor (On behalf of the Reconciliation Commission)