Talk:Bacterial taxonomy

Purpose

The purpose of this page is to be linked to as it is would not be a common search term. Many articles misunderstand the Bacteriological Code, while others would greatly benefit from the link to a page which explains the basics. The reason why the bacterial focus is that it is there were the more attention is needed. --Squidonius (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Archaea

I am not an archaeal expert, however, the principles (the Bacteriological code etc.) are the same. If someone who is an expert on the Archaea gives it the seal of approval, it can be transfered to Prokaryotic taxonomy --Squidonius (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Water as electron donor/Aquifex/Borrelia

The section "Subdivision based on Gram staining" says that Oxyphotobacteriae use water as electron acceptor in photosynthesis, but I think it is an electron donor. In the section "Phyla endings" I think in "Aquificae (from Aquifica)" it should be Aquifex instead of Aquifica, because in the other cases you are speaking about Genera. In the section "Names after places", Borrelia burgdorferi is not a good example because it was named after its discoverer Willy Burgdorfer.--Miguelferig (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bacterial taxonomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=4j53731651310230
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=fl73121jk4150280
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q74671t476444mq5/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007162154/http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/trueper.html to http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/trueper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202201721/http://www.empirebiota.info/ to http://www.empirebiota.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Spelling van Niel

This article and footnote 21 spell C. B. van Niel's last name as "van Neil," which is otherwise unattested in wikipedia. See C. B. van Niel. I don't have a primary source to verify the spelling, or I would correct it as a typo. --FTSharp (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

P. S. See .

E. coli classification statement removed

I have removed the following statement from Bacterial taxonomy § Escherichia coli‍: overly large and polyphyletic:

Escherichia coli is a badly classified species as some strains share only 20% of their genome. Being so diverse it should be given a higher taxonomic ranking. However, due to the medical conditions associated with the species, it will not be changed to avoid confusion in medical context.

What caught my eye was the wording here. I'm a little out of my depth here but the reference does not seem to support the statement in the article. In the section "Insights into the genome: Which E. coli genomes actually represent E. coli?" right above Figure 5, the paper states that all strains identified as E. coli are within the 70% range of the type strain and hence need no reclassification and that, In accordance with the taxonomic classification, none of the strains from other Escherichia species yielded a dDDH similarity >70%. They go on to suggest, using their approach, that E. coli be divided into 5 subspecies, one of which contains Shigella, not that it be elevated to a higher taxonomic rank.

Have I missed something?

References

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)