Candidatus
Enable an agent to recognise, assess and track Candidatus nomenclatural status for prokaryotic names without confusing naming status with biological identity.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
Researched by: Codex
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 12 findings · 20 questions
Designation and referent Establish what Candidatus denotes in this entry and how it qualifies a name.
Registry meaning
Resolve the intended sense and the unexplained organisational classification.
Originating concept
Identify the upstream concept rather than inferring its identity solely from its label or plane.
- Which upstream identifier and source description establish the intended meaning of vr.tr.candidatus? provenance
- Does that evidence identify a prokaryotic designation, an academic title or another referent? boundary
Qualified name
Separate the designation from the name and taxonomic rank it accompanies.
Designation-name separation
Preserve the exact published expression while identifying its constituent roles.
- What exact name is qualified by Candidatus in the cited description? definition
- Which source establishes the taxonomic rank independently of the Candidatus designation? provenance
Applicability and evidence Assess the basis for applying the designation to a described prokaryotic taxon.
Cultivation context
Record cultivation evidence and the stated reason for using Candidatus.
Designation basis
Keep reported cultivation limitations distinct from assumptions about what can never be cultured.
- What reason does the proposing publication give for applying Candidatus? provenance
- Does the evidence concern absent cultivation attempts, failed attempts, enrichment, co-culture or an available pure culture? boundary
Diagnostic support
Connect the name to observations that distinguish its intended taxon.
Inspectable description
Identify accessible diagnostic evidence and assess it against the selected rules without inventing universal thresholds.
- Which sequence accessions, morphological observations, host associations or other diagnostics support the description? provenance
- Which evidence requirements remain unmet under the applicable code version? boundary
Rules and publication standing Determine how a particular naming framework treats the designation and its publication.
Applicable rule set
Anchor the assessment in a named code, revision and effective period.
Dated status assessment
Record rule-dependent status rather than treating the prefix as sufficient evidence of standing.
- Which code revision and provisions govern the status being assessed? provenance
- Is the assessment describing standing at original publication or standing under subsequently adopted rules? boundary
Publication verification
Verify the publication events and official records supporting each claimed status.
Standing evidence
Separate original proposal, database usage and qualifying nomenclatural publication.
- Which original publication and subsequent list or announcement substantiate the claimed standing? provenance
- What may the agent report when the name is indexed but qualifying publication evidence has not been verified? action
Name continuity and transitions Track corrections, competing treatments and later changes without erasing earlier usage.
Parallel name treatment
Reconcile variant spellings and names evaluated under different frameworks.
Cross-framework identity
Require evidence before treating similar names or records under different codes as interchangeable.
- Are the compared records spelling variants, synonyms, different taxon circumscriptions or names governed by different codes? boundary
- Which description, reference material or explicit nomenclatural treatment supports linking them? provenance
Status change
Determine when evidence warrants updating the designation or linking a successor name.
Supported transition
Distinguish a biological development such as cultivation from a documented nomenclatural change.
- Which publication or formal action establishes the transition, and on what date? provenance
- Should the agent update current standing, add a successor-name relation or retain an unresolved transition pending evidence? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Candidatus this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Candidatus this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Candidatus this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Candidatus this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Physical world and living systems
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- PHY
- Domain
- PHY.LIV
What it is Filled
Candidatus is a Latin designation meaning candidate, used in distinct taxonomic, academic and historical contexts, so the label alone does not identify a particular organisation or institution.
In scope
- Disambiguation of the registry label and identification of the governing nomenclatural framework
- Conditions for applying Candidatus to a prokaryotic name
- Evidence linking the designation to a described taxon
- Publication, spelling and nomenclatural status under a specified code version
- Changes in designation and relationships to subsequent names
Out of scope
- Candidatus academic degrees and historical personal titles
- Governance and legal identity of nomenclatural organisations
- Complete biological models of individual bacteria or archaea
- Laboratory cultivation and sequencing protocols
- Independent reconstruction of taxonomic classifications
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to recognise, assess and track Candidatus nomenclatural status for prokaryotic names without confusing naming status with biological identity.
Distinguishing features Filled
- The designation qualifies a prokaryotic name; it does not itself identify an organism, organisation or academic qualification.
- Candidatus status must be recorded separately from taxonomic rank and the taxon's placement.
- An uncultivated organism or environmental sequence does not by itself establish that a Candidatus name has been proposed.
- The applicable code and date matter: revised ICNP provisions allow pro-valid publication and related pro-statuses, so a blanket assertion that every Candidatus name lacks nomenclatural standing is unsuitable. [ICNP Rules 66-73](https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.006638)
- The appearance of Candidatus in a database label is evidence of usage, requiring separate verification of its publication status.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Treat Candidatus as the name of a single organisation or institution.
- Present a Candidatus organism name as a validly published species name.
- Award or claim an academic candidate title on a person's behalf without the institution's record.
- Merge records from different senses of the term into one entity.
Only with a human decision
- Correcting a published name or record where the wrong sense of Candidatus was used.
May
- Explain the different senses of Candidatus, such as a provisional status in prokaryote naming or a historical academic title.
- Use the term in the form the relevant naming code or institution sets.
- Ask for or use context before linking the label to a particular organism, degree or institution.
Moral aspects Filled
- Confusing provisional and valid names misleads science and medicine.
- Academic titles are earned, so misattributing them misleads the public.
Who is affected
- Microbiologists and clinicians
- Holders of academic titles
- Database users
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns the label; naming committees and awarding institutions answer for its use in each field.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q16521 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.candidatus
- Wikidata: Q857968 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q857968)
Direct properties required Filled
- Referent confirmation: prokaryotic designation confirmed | alternative meaning confirmed | unresolved
- Qualified name and rank: Link to the exact taxon name, its recorded spelling and separately established rank
- Governing framework: Nomenclatural code, applicable revision, rule references and assessment date
- Publication standing: Recorded separately by framework: proposed, pro-validly published, validly published, unverified or disputed
- Cultivation evidence: Not reported | cultivation unsuccessful under reported conditions | enrichment or co-culture reported | pure culture reported
- Diagnostic evidence: Links to descriptions, sequence accessions, specimens, images and other distinguishing observations
- Nomenclatural history: Dated links to original proposals, corrections, status announcements and successor names
Recognition required Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Disambiguate a Candidatus label before assigning the registry model.
- Check a proposed designation against the applicable nomenclatural rules.
- Link the qualified name to its description and diagnostic evidence.
- Report missing evidence and unresolved standing without assigning an unsupported status.
- Reconcile historical and current names while preserving the cited naming framework.
- Prepare an evidence-backed status update for review without claiming that the agent confers nomenclatural standing.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Ambiguous use of the label causes records from unrelated fields to be merged.
- Provisional organism names can be mistaken for established species.
Standards and interfaces required Filled
- International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes.
Context of use required Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q857968: Candidatus - identity and sense of the item
- Wikipedia: Candidatus - general description of the item
Open questions
- Does the upstream registry identifier confirm the prokaryotic designation, and what explains its SOC / SOC.ORG assignment?
- Does an existing Vercy nomenclatural-status model already cover this concept, requiring a link instead of a separate publication?
- Which current ICNP provisions and transitional decisions must govern assessment of older Candidatus proposals?
- How should this catalogue represent parallel ICNP and SeqCode treatments without implying automatic equivalence?
- Which authoritative records should resolve disagreements between original descriptions, subsequent announcements and database labels?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q857968/spec.json