It seems all of g_Pseudomonas_E (so all the Pseudomonas fluorescens, P. syringae, P putita groups) has been folded in to g__Aquipseudomonas in Release 232 - is that intended?
Or mauby and unintended side-effect of nomenclatural priority rather than a deliberate call, since it seems like it might be worth a note either way:
Aquipseudomonas was described by Rudra & Gupta (2024, Front Microbiol) for a narrow four-species “Alcaligenes clade” (P. alcaligenes, P. campi, P. guryensis, P. ullengensis), demarcated by six CSIs specific to that clade. The same paper (and Lalucat et al. 2022before it) explicitly noted that the Alcaligenes clade branches separately from the Fluorescens superclade in their phylogenomic trees, and flagged this as a known discrepancy with GTDB’s tree at that node.
If GTDB’s R232 topology genuinely places P. alcaligenes as sister to (or nested within) the old Pseudomonas_E clade, and some priority naming rules with type species within a cluster which means the whole cluster inherits tthe Aquipseudomonas name, that’s understandable mechanically… but it does mean a name coined for a 4-species clade is now attached to several thousand species including all of the P. fluorescens, P. syringae and P. putida complexes, which will likely surprise people using GTDB taxonomy strings for those groups.