Judicial Opinion 132.

Area of Science:

• Microbiology
• Bacteriology
• Taxonomy

Background:

• The nomenclatural status of *Skermania piniformis* was questioned due to an unusual change in its basionym's epithet.
• This case required re-evaluation of established precedents, specifically Judicial Commission Opinion 85, concerning orthographic corrections in prokaryotic names.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the nomenclatural status of *Skermania piniformis* (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997.
• To provide guidelines for orthographic corrections based on precedents and recent Judicial Opinions.
• To rule on the necessity of proposing multiple names for a single taxon.

Main Methods:

• Re-evaluation of Judicial Commission Opinion 85.
• Analysis of the reasons and consequences of the precedent-setting Opinion.
• Application of guidelines for orthographic corrections derived from the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP).

Main Results:

• The request to change the epithet to *Skermania pinensis* corrig. (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997 was granted.
• It was emphasized that this correction does not affect the legitimacy or valid publication date of the involved names.
• The Judicial Commission ruled against proposing two names for the same taxon to replace an illegitimate name, as per Rule 54 of the ICNP.

Conclusions:

• Opinion 132 establishes a precedent for handling orthographic corrections in prokaryotic nomenclature.
• The ruling ensures taxonomic clarity and stability for *Skermania piniformis*.
• The decision reinforces adherence to the ICNP, specifically regarding the naming of taxa.