Proposal to replace the pro-illegitimate prokaryotic names ‘Candidatus Nostocoides’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al. 2012 and ‘Candidatus Nostocoides acidiphilum’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al. 2012 with ‘Candidatus Nostocimimus’ gen. nov. and ‘Candidatus Nostocimimus acidiphilus’ comb. nov.

Two species have been named in the provisional genus ‘ Candidatus Nostocoides’: ‘ Ca . Nostocoides limicola’ corrig. Blackall et al . 2000 and ‘ Ca . Nostocoides acidiphilum’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al . 2012. The type species of the genus, ‘ Ca . Nostocoides limicola’ has since been transferred to Tetrasphaera Maszenan et al . 2000, which was later renamed Nostocoides Deshmukh and Oren 2024. This leaves ‘ Ca . Nostocoides acidiphilum’ as an orphan species. Furthermore, Kulichevskaya et al . did not assign ‘ Ca . Nostocoides acidiphilum’ to ‘ Ca . Nostocoides’ corrig. Blackall et al . 2000. Instead, they proposed a new genus, ‘ Ca . Nostocoides’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al . 2012, in the phylum Planctomycetota . This is in violation of Rule 51b (4) of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, making ‘ Ca . Nostocoides’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al . 2012 and ‘ Ca . Nostocoides acidiphilum’ corrig. Kulichevskaya et al . 2012 pro-illegitimate names. To resolve this situation, I propose the replacement names ‘ Ca . Nostocimimus’ gen. nov. and ‘ Ca . Nostocimimus acidiphilus’ comb. nov., respectively.