Opinion 129 addresses the status of Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980). The name has the category 'division' and was included in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, although that category had previously been removed from the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (1975 revision onwards). When the category 'phylum' was introduced into the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) in 2021, equivalence between 'phylum' and 'division' was not stipulated. Since the definition of the taxonomic categories and their relative order is one of the principal tasks of every code of nomenclature, the inclusion of Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 in the Approved Lists was an error. The name is either not validly published or illegitimate because its category is not covered by the ICNP. If Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) was a validly published phylum name, it would be illegitimate because it would contravene Rule 8, which does not permit any deviation from the requirement to derive a phylum name from the name of the type genus. Since Firmicutes corrig. Gibbons and Murray 1978 is also part of a 'misfitting megaclassification' recognized in Opinion 128, the name is rejected, without any pre-emption regarding a hypothetically validly published name Firmicutes at the rank of phylum. Gracilicutes Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) and Anoxyphotobacteriae Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) are also rejected. The validly published phylum names have a variety of advantages over their not validly published counterparts and cannot be replaced with ad hoc names suggested in the literature. To ease the transition, it is recommended to mention the not validly published phylum names which strongly deviate in spelling from their validly published counterparts along with the latter in publications during the next years.

Opinion 123 places the epithet of the name Aeromonas punctata on the list of rejected epithets and clarifies the citation of authors of selected names within the genus Aeromonas. Opinion 124 denies the request to place Borreliella on the list of rejected names because the request is based on a misinterpretation of the Code, which is clarified. There are alternative ways to solve the perceived problem. Opinion 125 denies the request to place Lactobacillus fornicalis on the list of rejected names because the provided information does not yield a reason for rejection. Opinion 126 denies the request to place Prolinoborus and Prolinoborus fasciculus on the list of rejected names because a relevant type strain deposit was not examined. Opinion 127 grants the request to assign the strain deposited as ATCC 4720 as the type strain of Agrobacterium tumefaciens, thereby correcting the Approved Lists. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

Opinion 130 deals with a Request for an Opinion asking the Judicial Commission to clarify whether the genus name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 (Approved Lists 1980) is illegitimate. The Request is approved and an answer is given. The name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 (Approved Lists 1980) is illegitimate because it is a later homonym of the validly published cyanobacterial name Rhodococcus Hansgirg 1884. The Judicial Commission also clarifies that it has the means to resolve such cases by conserving a name over an earlier homonym. It is concluded that the name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 (Approved Lists 1980) is significantly more important than the name Rhodococcus Hansgirg 1884 and therefore the former is conserved over the latter. This makes the name Rhodococcus Zopf 1891 (Approved Lists 1980) legitimate.

Opinion 112 denies the request to place Seliberia Aristovskaya and Parinkina 1963 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names because the information provided is insufficient. For the same reason, Opinion 113 denies the request to reject Shewanella irciniae Lee et al. 2006 and Opinion 114 denies the request to reject the name Enterobacter siamensis Khunthongpan et al. 2014. Opinion 115 rejects the epithet of Moorella thermoautotrophica (Wiegel et al. 1981) Collins et al. 1994, which is regarded as a nomen confusum. To assess the consequences of Rule 8, Opinion 116 revisits names of taxa above the rank of genus which should comprise the stem of the name of a nomenclatural type and a category-specific ending but fail to do so. Such names should be orthographically corrected if the sole error is the inadvertent usage of an incorrect stem or be regarded as illegitimate if otherwise. The necessary corrections are made for a number of names. In Opinion 117, the request to designate Methylothermus subterraneus Hirayama et al. 2011 as the type species of the genus Methylothermus is denied because an equivalent action compatible with the Code was already conducted. In Opinion 118, the possible orthographical correction of the name Flaviaesturariibacter is treated, as are the analogous cases of Fredinandcohnia and Hydrogeniiclostidium. The genus names are corrected to Flaviaestuariibacter, Ferdinandcohnia and Hydrogeniiclostridium, respectively. Opinion 119 concludes that assigning Actinomycetales Buchanan 1917 (Approved Lists 1980) as nomenclatural type of the class Actinobacteria Stackebrandt et al. 1997 would not render that name legitimate if Rule 8 remained retroactive. The request is granted but Actinomycetales is also assigned as type of Actinomycetes Krassilnikov 1949 (Approved Lists 1980). In Opinion 120, the possible orthographical correction of the name Amycolatopsis albidoflavus is treated. It is grammatically corrected to Amycolatopsis albidoflava. Six names which could according to Rule 61 be grammatically corrected by anyone are also corrected. Opinion 121 denies the request to revise Opinion 69 and notes that Opinion 69 does not have the undesirable consequences emphasized in the request. In Opinion 122, the request to reject various taxon names of Mollicutes proposed in 2018 is denied because it is based on misinterpretations of the Code, which are clarified. Alternative ways to solve the perceived problems are outlined. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

In Opinion 103, the request to place the name Spirillum volutans Ehrenberg 1832 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied because a neotype may be designated. Similarly, because a neotype may be designated, in Opinion 104 the request to place the name Beijerinckia fluminensis Döbereiner and Ruschel 1958 (Approved Lists 1980) on the list of rejected names is denied. In Opinion 105, it is emphasized that the name Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 does not contravene the Code. The request to orthographically correct Rhodoligotrophos Fukuda et al. 2012 to Rhodoligotrophus corrig. Fukuda et al. 2012 is denied. Opinion 106 addresses two Requests for an Opinion and results in the placement of the epithet hoagii in Corynebacterium hoagii (Morse 1912) Eberson 1918 (Approved Lists 1980) and Rhodococcus hoagii (Morse 1912) Kämpfer et al. 2014 on the list of rejected specific and subspecific epithets. Since this removes all known available earlier synonyms of Rhodococcus equi (Magnusson 1923) Goodfellow and Alderson 1977 (Approved Lists 1980), the request to conserve the epithet equi in this name is denied. In Opinion 107, Thermomicrobium fosteri Phillips and Perry 1976 (Approved Lists 1980) is placed on the list of rejected names as a nomen dubium et confusum. Opinion 108 denies the request to place Hyphomonas rosenbergii Weiner et al. 2000 on the list of rejected names because the information provided to the Judicial Commission is not sufficient to draw a conclusion on this matter. In Opinion 109, which addresses three Requests for an Opinion, the Judicial Commission denies the requests to place the names Bacillus aerius Shivaji et al. 2006, Bacillus aerophilus Shivaji et al. 2006 and Bacillus stratosphericus Shivaji et al. 2006 on the list of rejected names. Instead, it is concluded that these three names had not met the requirements for valid publication. Likewise, the Judicial Commission concludes in Opinion 110 that the name Actinobaculum massiliense corrig. Greub and Raoult 2006 had not met the requirements for valid publication. The Judicial Commission reaffirms in Opinion 111 that Methanocorpusculum parvum Zellner et al. 1988 is the nomenclatural type of Methanocorpusculum Zellner et al. 1988 and further emphasizes that the species was not in danger of losing this status. These Opinions were ratified by the voting members of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.

Judicial Opinion 128 addresses nomenclatural issues related to the names of classes validly published under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. It is confirmed that the common ending -proteobacteria of some class names is not indicative of a joint taxonomic or phylogenetic placement; that the nomenclatural type of Mollicutes Edward and Freundt 1967 (Approved Lists 1980) is Mycoplasmatales Freundt 1955 (Approved Lists 1980); and that the placement of a name on the list of rejected names does not imply that another name with the same spelling but a distinct rank is also placed on that list. The names at the rank of class Anoxyphotobacteria (Gibbons and Murray 1978) Murray 1988, Archaeobacteria Murray 1988, Bacteria Haeckel 1894 (Approved Lists 1980), Firmibacteria Murray 1988, Microtatobiotes Philip 1956 (Approved Lists 1980), Oxyphotobacteria (ex Gibbons and Murray 1978) Murray 1988, Photobacteria Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980), Proteobacteria Stackebrandt et al. 1988, Schizomycetes Nägeli 1857 (Approved Lists 1980), Scotobacteria Gibbons and Murray 1978 (Approved Lists 1980) are placed on the list of rejected names. For three common nominative singular suffixes of genus names their genitive singular and nominative plural forms are confirmed: -bacter (-bacteris, -bacteres); -fex (-ficis, -fices); and -genes (-genis, -genes). The class names Aquificae Reysenbach 2002, Chrysiogenetes Garrity and Holt 2002, Chthonomonadetes Lee et al. 2011, Gemmatimonadetes Zhang et al. 2003, Opitutae Choo et al. 2007 and Verrucomicrobiae Hedlund et al. 1998 are orthographically corrected to Aquificia, Chrysiogenia, Chthonomonadia, Gemmatimonadia, Opitutia and Verrucomicrobiia, respectively.

In this paper the Judicial Commission provides general guidance for interpreting the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) and specific assistance to authors, reviewers and editors of a Request for an Opinion, or of other suggestions related to the ICNP. The role of the Judicial Commission is recapitulated, particularly with respect to the processing of such Requests. Selected kinds of nomenclature-related proposals are discussed that are unsuitable as the basis for a Request. Particular emphasis is put on Requests for placing names or epithets on the list of nomina rejicienda, and a dichotomous identification key is provided to guide potential authors of a Request that targets the name of a species or subspecies because of issues with its type strain. To this end, the criteria for the valid publication of such names under the ICNP are revisited. Aspects of other kinds of Requests are also addressed. The study is based on a comprehensive review of all Judicial Opinions issued since the publication of the Approved Lists in 1980. One goal of this paper is to assist potential authors in deciding whether their concern should be the subject of a Request, and if so, in composing it with the greatest chance of success. It is also clarified how to obtain additional help regarding nomenclature-related issues.