Geomonas pelophila (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Xu et al. 2019 Geomonas pelophila (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Xu et al. 2019 Universal Root Woese et al. 1990 Bacteria (None 2015) Woese et al. 1990 Desulfobacterota Waite et al. 2020 Desulfuromonadia Waite et al. 2020 Geobacterales Waite et al. 2020 Geobacteraceae Holmes et al. 2004 emend. Xu et al. 2021 Geomonas Xu et al. 2020 emend. Itoh et al. 2021 non Geomonas Khan et al. 2020 Geomonas pelophila (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Xu et al. 2019 Geomonas Xu et al. 2020 emend. Itoh et al. 2021 non Geomonas Khan et al. 2020 Geomonas oryzae Xu et al. 2020 Geomonas edaphica Xu et al. 2020 Geomonas ferrireducens Xu et al. 2020 Geomonas terrae Xu et al. 2020 Geomonas bemidjiensis (Nevin et al. 2005) Xu et al. 2020 Geomonas bremensis (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Xu et al. 2020 Geomonas silvestris Itoh et al. 2021 Geomonas paludis Itoh et al. 2021 Geomonas limicola Itoh et al. 2021 Geomonas propionica Zhang et al. 2021 Geomonas anaerohicana Zhang et al. 2021 Geomonas azotofigens Xu et al. 2022 Geomonas diazotrophica Xu et al. 2022 Geomonas oryzisoli Liu et al. 2022 Geomonas subterranea Liu et al. 2022 Geomonas nitrogeniifigens Liu et al. 2022 Geobacter pelophilus Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001 Geoanaerobacter pelophilus (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Xu et al. 2022 Citrifermentans pelophilum (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Waite et al. 2020 Geomonas pelophila (Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001) Xu et al. 2019 Straub K.L. Buchholz-Cleven B.E.E. Geobacter bremensis sp. nov. and Geobacter pelophilus sp. nov., two dissimilatory ferric-iron-reducing bacteria. 2001 51 5 1805 1808 International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 1466-5026 1466-5034 10.1099/00207713-51-5-1805 11594612 Xu Z. Masuda Y. Wang X. Ushijima N. Shiratori Y. Senoo K. Itoh H. Genome-Based Taxonomic Rearrangement of the Order Geobacterales Including the Description of Geomonas azotofigens sp. nov. and Geomonas diazotrophica sp. nov. 2021 12 737531 737531 Frontiers in Microbiology Front. Microbio. 1664-302X 10.3389/fmicb.2021.737531 34659166 Xu Z. Masuda Y. Itoh H. Ushijima N. Shiratori Y. Senoo K. Geomonas oryzae gen. nov., sp. nov., Geomonas edaphica sp. nov., Geomonas ferrireducens sp. nov., Geomonas terrae sp. nov., Four Ferric-Reducing Bacteria Isolated From Paddy Soil, and Reclassification of Three Species of the Genus Geobacter as Members of the Genus Geomonas gen. nov. 2019 10 2201 2201 Frontiers in Microbiology Front. Microbio. 1664-302X 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02201 31608033 Xu Z. Masuda Y. Itoh H. Ushijima N. Shiratori Y. Senoo K. Geomonas oryzae gen. nov., sp. nov., Geomonas edaphica sp. nov., Geomonas ferrireducens sp. nov., Geomonas terrae sp. nov., Four Ferric-Reducing Bacteria Isolated From Paddy Soil, and Reclassification of Three Species of the Genus Geobacter as Members of the Genus Geomonas gen. nov. 2019 10 2201 2201 Frontiers in Microbiology Front. Microbio. 1664-302X 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02201 31608033 Geobacter pelophilus Straub and Buchholz-Cleven 2001 Xu Z. Masuda Y. Itoh H. Ushijima N. Shiratori Y. Senoo K. Geomonas oryzae gen. nov., sp. nov., Geomonas edaphica sp. nov., Geomonas ferrireducens sp. nov., Geomonas terrae sp. nov., Four Ferric-Reducing Bacteria Isolated From Paddy Soil, and Reclassification of Three Species of the Genus Geobacter as Members of the Genus Geomonas gen. nov. 2019 10 2201 2201 Frontiers in Microbiology Front. Microbio. 1664-302X 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02201 31608033 The VL 191 entry of Geomonas pelophila was deleted - message of the author of 31 October: Dear Prof. Oren, Thanks for your email. Here this is a problem I need your suggestion. In our previous published paper, we proposed 4 novel species and reclassified 3 Geobacter species mostly based on their genome sequences. However, after our paper open published, a researcher who sequenced genome sequences for Geobacter pelophilum emailed to us that the genome they sequenced and submitted to NCBI was wrong. What they submitted two years ago was come from G. bremensis, rather than G. pelophilum. And they said they have noticed NCBI staff about this problem, but by now, NCBI has not amended in their database. So in view of this problem, what about cancel the validation of strain G. pelophila? Additionally, when NCBI corrected the genome sequences of G. pelophilum, we then email to the journal and modify our article. What do you think? Thanks for your consideration. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best Regards, Zhenxing Xu Therefore I will not restore this entry in the page proofs. This name was proposed by Xu et al. 2019 but was based on the genome of G. bremensis rather than G. pelophilus. The author requested this name to be removed from VL 191 prior to publication.