I know that Eddie and likely those following this thread are intelligent and reasonable biologists, but I don't quite understand this comment and the seemingly endless difficulty and misrepresentation in any discussion of virus species names here and on other sites.
We are only joking. However, I will note that Bandavirus dabieense was until recently Dabie bandavirus, while Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus was previously Thrombocytopenia syndrome bunyavirus and before that Huaiyangshan virus. No problems with clarity whatsoever.
Thanks for your replies and glad to hear that the (rather long) post was helpful. I should however further clarify that, as in other areas of biology, common names are NOT regulated by the relevant taxonomic codes, virology included.
In both cases, we are equating a common or virus name with the taxon to which it is assigned, simply to ensure that their names are clear and matched to published descriptions of the species.
Whether a common name or a scientific / species binomial are used depends on the relevant taxonomic code
Bacteria and archaea typically lack common names and are referred to by their scientific names (eg. Streptococcus pneumoniae), while macroscopic animals, plants and fungi are referred to by their common names (if they have them, as in the arctic fox, human beings dogs).
They see this quite a bit in domestic dogs in Japan … reviewed a few papers on it , rather alarmingly it is excreted in large volumes in urine ( and transmission dog to dog has been documented)
Comments
If we paraphrase the article as:
Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) were frequently infected with SFTSV (Bandavirus dabieense)
I'm really not sure why this so problematic
Whether a common name or a scientific / species binomial are used depends on the relevant taxonomic code
"this virus has pandemic potential"
Please excuse the unqualified answer.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-021-00610-1
Are farmed foxes vaccinated?