Judicial Opinions 103-111

In Opinion 103, the request to place the name Spirillum volutans Ehrenberg 1832 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied because a neotype may be designated. Similarly, because a neotype may be designated, in Opinion 104 the request to place the name Beijerinckia fluminensis Dobereiner and Ruschel 1958 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied. In Opinion 105, it is emphasized that the name Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 does not contravene the Code. The request to orthographically correct Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 to Rhodoligotrophus corrig. Fukuda et al. 2012 is denied. Opinion 106 addresses two Requests for an Opinion and results in the placement of the epithet hoagii in Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918 (Approved Lists 1980) and Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kampfer et al. 2014 on the list of rejected specific and subspecific epithets. Since this removes all known available earlier synonyms of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 (Approved Lists 1980), the request to conserve the epithet equi in this name is denied. In Opinion 107, Thermomicrobium fosteri Phillips and Perry 1976 (Approved Lists 1980) is placed on the list of rejected names as a nomen dubium et confusum. Opinion 108 denies the request to place Hyphomonas rosenbergii Weiner et al. 2000 on the list of rejected names because the information provided to the Judicial Commission is not sufficient to draw a conclusion on this matter. In Opinion 109, which addresses three Requests for an Opinion, the Judicial Commission denies the requests to place the names Bacillus aerius Shivaji et al. 2006, Bacillus aerophilus Shivaji et al. 2006 and Bacillus stratosphericus Shivaji et al. 2006 on the list of rejected names. Instead, it is concluded that these three names had not met the requirements for valid publication. Likewise, the Judicial Commission concludes in Opinion 110 that the name Actinobaculum massiliense corrig. Greub and Raoult 2006 had not met the requirements for valid publication. The Judicial Commission reaffirms in Opinion 111 that Methanocorpusculum parvum Zellner et al. 1988 is the nomenclatural type of Methanocorpusculum Zellner et al. 1988 and further emphasizes that the species was not in danger of losing this status. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.