In 2025, Brownstein and Near published a complete phylogeny of sturgeons that put again in evidence that the genus Acipenser as currently defined is paraphyletic, and made a new classification based on that phylogeny: they extended the definition of Huso, they resurrected Sinosturio, they left only 3 species in Acipenser, while Scaphirhynchus and Pseudoscaphirhynchus remained unaffected.

Later in the year, while not disagreeing on the phylogeny that they estimated not that new, Kottelat and Freyhof rebutted the use of Huso and proposed instead the resurrection of Sterletus as a senior synonym based on some articles of the zoological code of nomenclature. A reply by Brownstein and Near then reaffirmed the validity of the use of Huso.

While it is nice to see that taxonomy and nomenclature are vivid, the instability of names is detrimental to the conservation of these highly endangered species. Which was noted by the sturgeon community during a conference in the fall 2025, which resulted in a declaration proposing that only Acipenser, Scaphirhynchus and Pseudoscaphirhynchus are kept valid for the time being, including putting Huso (2 species currently not related anyway) in the synonymy of Acipenser. In addition to the nomenclature, they argue that Brownstein and Near did not consider possible past introgressions that probably biased their phylogeny (WSCS, 2025: IUCN SSG summary report. https://www.wscs.info/iucn-ssg-summary-report).

So, the accepted names listed in WoRMS are the ones according to the declaration. But to keep trace of the two other options, we entered alternative representations using the other genera as subgenera, in case one would like to reconstruct the phylogeny-based classification with Huso or Sterletus, alternative names that must not considered to be accepted.
 [details]