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