Over the last couple years, I have enjoyed watching the binomial nomenclature unfold for viruses. Though, today I came across the new species names for poleroviruses and was a bit surprised in the direction that these species names have gone.  It seems that the acronyms for the viruses are now being used for the species epithet (White clover mottle virus is now Polerovirus WCMV)...is that correct? If so, I have some concerns with going in this direction as I think it will be very difficult when it comes to communicating and understanding the differences between the viruses. Are there genera other than Polerovirus that have gone in this direction,  too? Are there any articles or communications from ICTV that explain why the group has gone in this direction? 

Thanks to anyone who can help me better understand this.

Kind Regards, 

Jarrod Morrice 

Hi

This obviously isn't a very active forum, and apologies on behalf of the ICTV for the lack of response to an entirely legitimate and valid question. The originators of the plan to rename species conceived of them as Latinised binomials, as used elsewhere in biology. However, several of the Study Group, particularly those involved in bacterial virus taxonomy, felt it impractical to coin Latinised epithets wit the correct grammatical endings, and therefore insisted that the species ending should be "free-form". Unfortunately, this was also the view of some of the plant virus Study Groups, hence the type of species name you have described is now an official part of the taxonomy of poleroviruses and by the look of it, all members of the Solemniviridae (and many other plant virus groups). 

Do feel welcome to take this up with the Plant virus subcommittee chair (Luisa Rubino) - I would email her directly - [email protected] rather than wait for a reply on the forum. 

Hope that is useful

best wishes

Peter Simmonds ([email protected])

Wed, 03/04/2026 - 03:41
Peter Simmonds