LAUSR

Lloyd and Tahon recently criticized proposed bacterial phylum nomenclature changes (K.G. Lloyd, G. Tahon, Nat Rev Microbiol 20:123-124, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00684-2) precipitated by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP)’s official recognition of phylum nomenclature rules. Here, we extend the critique. ABSTRACT Lloyd and Tahon recently criticized proposed bacterial phylum nomenclature changes (K.G. Lloyd, G. Tahon, Nat Rev Microbiol 20:123-124, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00684-2) precipitated by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP)’s official recognition of phylum nomenclature rules. Here, we extend the critique. While we applaud bringing consistency to phylum names, we prognosticate what this minute but momentous change entails for the future of microbial nomenclature and how this will sow confusion among researchers. Several pitfalls of the proposed ICSP framework-based nomenclature are also detailed, including (i) improper type genus name and suffix usage, (ii) loss of Bacteria/Archaea distinctions, (iii) disruption of major phylum name prefixes, and (iv) absence of organism name prevalidation. Finally, we suggest new names for the key bacterial phyla Proteobacteria (Proteobacteriota), Firmicutes (Firmicuteota), Actinobacteria (Actinobacteriota), and Tenericutes (Tenericuteota), while keeping the archaeal phylum names Crenarchaeota, Thaumarchaeota, and Euryarchaeota. Together, these changes will help researchers attain chaos-free uniform nomenclature.