Conservation of the name Aeromonas eucrenophila over the name Aeromonas punctata for the organism based on type stain NCMB 74(T) and universally defined as 'Aeromonas DNA hybridization group 6'

In a companion paper, we requested the Judicial Commission to correct the type strain of Aeromonas punctata from ATCC 15468(T) to NCMB 74(T) (=ATCC 23309(T)). Correction of this error on the 1980 Approved Lists by an Opinion of the Judicial Commission will remove the status of the name Aeromonas caviae as a junior objective synonym of A. punctata. This is important because the scientific community continues to use the name A. caviae almost exclusively instead of A. punctata. However, the corrective action of this Opinion will cause a new problem. A. punctata and A. eucrenophila will then become objective synonyms because both species will have the same type strain NCMB 74(T), and A. punctata would have priority because it was published first (1890 vs. 1987). Thus. A. punctata rather than A. eucrenophila would become the correct name for DNA hybridization group 6. A. punctata has had a very confusing history since it was first described as Bacillus punctatus by Zimmermann in 1890. It was without a type strain for over 50 years, and unfortunately, has had an incorrect type strain for some 40 years. The name A. punctata as a bacterial species has been used incorrectly in the literature very frequently, either based on the wrong type strain or with the wrong definition or circumscription. The name A. punctata is not accepted or used by most specialists who study and publish scientific papers and reviews on Aeromonas. Under the heading 'Rejection of Names' Rule 56a of the Bacterial Code states reasons why the Judicial Commission can reject a name, the first is: '(1) An ambiguous name (nomen ambiguum), i.e., a name which has been used with different meanings and thus has become a source of error'. Rule 56a gives the Judicial Commission authority to place names on the list of rejected names. Our analysis of its history leads us to state unequivocally that A. punctata currently is, and has been throughout the vast majority of its history, an ambiguous name. After considering all the possible alternatives and their consequences we request the Judicial Commission to go against the rules of priority; to invoke case (1) of Rule 56a. and issue an Opinion conserving A. eucrenophila over A. punctata; and to place the name A. punctata on the list of rejected names. We argue that these actions will give instant stability to a complex and confusing situation by making A. eucrenophila rather than A. punctata the correct name for 'Aeromonas DNA hybridization group 6', an asso