“… controversies arise from species being proposed for placement in other genera, accompanied by the proposal and valid publication of new combinations. While such proposals are simply an expression of taxonomic freedom, the same taxonomic freedom allows others to prefer an older validly published name for the same species, thereby implying the position of the species in another genus. One of the most serious misunderstandings of the ICNP is the belief that, in a series of homotypic synonyms, the last validly published name must be treated as the correct name.”

Source: https://www.the-icsp.org/images/reports/ICSP_letter_to_all_subcommittees_final%20161123.pdf

Local backup: icsp_letter_to_all_subcommittees_final_161123.pdf

“… a major misconception regarding the correct name is that, among a series of homotypic synonyms, the most recent validly published and legitimate name must be selected as the correct name.”

Source: https://lpsn.dsmz.de/text/faq#why-and-how-does-lpsn-assign-the-status-correct-name

Local backup (2024/05/03): lpsn_faq_20240503.pdf

The new names proposed by Gupta et al. regarding the reclassification of Mycoplasma (Gupta et al. 2018) caused confusion. The Subcommittee recommended rejection of those names (Balish et al. 2019). However, the ICSP Judicial Opinion 122 denied the request, so names such as Malacoplasma, Mesomycoplasma, and Metamycoplasma are valid.

Due to the ICSP ruling, although the Subcommittee holds a similar position regarding other reclassifications proposed in (Gupta et al. 2019), a separate “Request for an Opinion” was not prepared.

Based on the discussion of this Subcommittee and attendees of the 24th International Organization for Mycoplasmology (IOM) Congress, the majority opinion strongly preferred the original names.