English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Principle 2 of the Prokaryotic Code, as modified by the ICSP in 1999, reads: 'The nomenclature of prokaryotes is not independent of botanical and zoological nomenclature. When naming new taxa in the rank of genus or higher, due consideration is to be given to avoiding names which are regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants'. But in the current version of the Prokaryotic Code no Rule implements this version of Principle 2. I therefore propose adding the following sentence to Rule 10a: 'As from January 2001, newly proposed generic names must not be later homonyms of names in use in botany or zoology'. Recommendation 10a(3) of the Code states: 'Avoid introducing into bacteriology as generic names such names as are in use in botany or zoology, in particular well-known names'. This Recommendation contravenes the current version of Principle 2 and the proposed new version of Rule 10a. Therefore I propose to delete Recommendation 10a(3) from the Prokaryotic Code.

Proposal to modify Rule 10a and to delete Recommendation 10a(3) from the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes