In the scientific classification established by Carl Linnaeus, each species has to be assigned to a genus (binary nomenclature), which in turn is a lower level of a hierarchy of ranks (family, suborder, order, subclass, class, division/phyla, kingdom and domain).
In the currently accepted classification of life, there are three domains (Eukaryotes, Bacteria and Archaea), which, in terms of taxonomy, despite following the same principles have several different conventions between them and between their subdivisions as they are studied by different disciplines (botany, zoology, mycology and microbiology). For example, in zoology there are type specimens, whereas in microbiology there are type strains.
Prokaryotes share many common features, such as lack of nuclear membrane, unicellularity, division by binary-fission and generally small size. The various species differ amongst each other based on several characteristics, allowing their identification and classification. Examples include:
Phylogeny: All bacteria stem from a common ancestor and diversified since, and consequently possess different levels of evolutionary relatedness (see Bacterial phyla and Timeline of evolution)
Tree of Life in Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866)
Bacteria were first classified as plants constituting the class Schizomycetes, which along with the Schizophyceae (blue green algae/Cyanobacteria) formed the phylum Schizophyta.
Haeckel in 1866 placed the group in the phylum Moneres (from μονήρης: simple) in the kingdom Protista and defines them as completely structureless and homogeneous organisms, consisting only of a piece of plasma. He subdivided the phylum into two groups:
die Gymnomoneren (no envelope)
Protogenes—such as Protogenes primordialis, now classed as a eukaryote and not a bacterium
Protamaeba—now classed as a eukaryote and not a bacterium
Vibrio—a genus of comma shaped bacteria first described in 1854)
Bacterium—a genus of rod shaped bacteria first described in 1828, that later gave its name to the members of the Monera, formerly referred to as "a moneron" (plural "monera") in English and "eine Moneren"(fem. plural "Moneres") in German
Bacillus—a genus of spore-forming rod shaped bacteria first described in 1835
Ferdinand Cohn recognized 4 tribes: Spherobacteria, Microbacteria, Desmobacteria, and Spirobacteria. Stanier and van Neil recognized the Kingdom Monera with 2 phyla, Myxophyta and Schizomycetae, the latter comprising classes Eubacteriae (3 orders), Myxobacteriae (1 order), and Spirochetae (1 order). Bisset distinguished 1 class and 4 orders: Eubacteriales, Actinomycetales, Streptomycetales, and Flexibacteriales. Migula, which was the most widely accepted system of its time and included all then-known species but was based only on morphology, contained the 3 basic groups, Coccaceae, Bacillaceae, and Spirillaceae but also Trichobacterinae for filamentous bacteria; Orla-Jensen established 2 orders: Cephalotrichinae (7 families) and Peritrichinae (presumably with only 1 family). Bergey et al presented a classification which generally followed the 1920 Final Report of the SAB(Society of American Bacteriologists) Committee ( Winslow et al), which divided Class Schizomycetes into 4 orders: Myxobacteriales, Thiobacteriales, Chlamydobacteriales, and Eubacteriales, with a 5th group being 4 genera considered intermediate between bacteria and protozoans: Spirocheta, Cristospira, Saprospira, and Treponema.
However, different authors often reclassified the genera due to the lack of visible traits to go by, resulting in a poor state which was summarised in 1915 by Robert Earle Buchanan
By then, the whole group received different ranks and names by different authors namely
Furthermore the families into which the class was subdivided, changed from author to author and for some such as Zipf the names were in German and not in Latin
The first edition of the Bacteriological Code in 1947 sorted several problems out.
A.R. Prévot's system) had 4 subphyla and 8 classes as follows:
Eubacteriales (classes Asporulales and Sporulales)
Mycobacteriales (classes Actinomycetales, Myxobacteriales, and Azotobacteriales)
Algobacteriales (classes Siderobacteriales and Thiobacteriales)
Protozoobacteriales (class Spirochetales)
Despite there being little agreement on the major subgroups of the Bacteria, Gram staining results were most commonly used as a classification tool. Consequently, until the advent of molecular phylogeny, the Kingdom Prokaryotae was divided into four divisions, A classification scheme still formally followed by Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology for tome order
Photobacteria (photosynthetic): class Oxyphotobacteriae (water as electron donor, includes the order Cyanobacteriales=blue-green algae, now phylum Cyanobacteria) and class Anoxyphotobacteriae (anaerobic phototrophs, orders: Rhodospirillales and Chlorobiales
Scotobacteria (non-photosynthetic, now the Proteobacteria and other gram-negative nonphotosynthetic phyla)
Firmacutes [sic] (gram-positive, subsequently corrected to Firmicutes)
several orders such as Bacillales and Actinomycetales (now in the phylum Actinobacteria)
Mollicutes (gram variable, e.g. Mycoplasma)
Mendocutes (uneven gram stain, "methanogenic bacteria", now known as the Archaea)
Woese argued that the bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes represent separate lines of descent that diverged early on from an ancestral colony of organisms. However, a few biologists argue that the Archaea and Eukaryota arose from a group of bacteria. In any case, it is thought that viruses and archaea began relationships approximately two billion years ago, and that co-evolution may have been occurring between members of these groups. It is possible that the last common ancestor of the bacteria and archaea was a thermophile, which raises the possibility that lower temperatures are "extreme environments" in archaeal terms, and organisms that live in cooler environments appeared only later. Since the Archaea and Bacteria are no more related to each other than they are to eukaryotes, the term prokaryote's only surviving meaning is "not a eukaryote", limiting its value.
With improved methodologies it became clear that the methanogenic bacteria were profoundly different and were (erroneously) believed to be relics of ancient bacteria thus Carl Woese, regarded as the forerunner of the molecular phylogeny revolution, identified three primary lines of descent: the Archaebacteria, the Eubacteria, and the Urkaryotes, the latter now represented by the nucleocytoplasmic component of the Eukaryotes. These lineages were formalised into the rank Domain (regio in Latin) which divided Life into 3 domains: the Eukaryota, the Archaea and the Bacteria.
In 1987 Carl Woese divided the Eubacteria into 11 divisions based on 16S ribosomal RNA (SSU) sequences, which with several additions are still used today.
While the three domain system is widely accepted, some authors have opposed it for various reasons.
One prominent scientist who opposes the three domain system is Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who proposed that the Archaea and the Eukaryotes (the Neomura) stem from Gram positive bacteria (Posibacteria), which in turn derive from gram negative bacteria (Negibacteria) based on several logical arguments, which are highly controversial and generally disregarded by the molecular biology community (c.f. reviewers' comments on,e.g. Eric Bapteste is "agnostic" regarding the conclusions) and are often not mentioned in reviews (e.g.) due to the subjective nature of the assumptions made.
However, despite there being a wealth of statistically supported studies towards the rooting of the tree of life between the Bacteria and the Neomura by means of a variety of methods, including some that are impervious to accelerated evolution—which is claimed by Cavalier-Smith to be the source of the supposed fallacy in molecular methods—there are a few studies which have drawn different conclusions, some of which place the root in the phylum Firmicutes with nested archaea.
Radhey Gupta's molecular taxonomy, based on conserved signature sequences of proteins, includes a monophyletic Gram negative clade, a monophyletic Gram positive clade, and a polyphyletic Archeota derived from Gram positives. Hori and Osawa's molecular analysis indicated a link between Metabacteria (=Archeota) and eukaryotes. The only cladistic analyses for bacteria based on classical evidence largely corroborate Gupta's results (see comprehensive mega-taxonomy).
James Lake presented a 2 primary kingdom arrangement (Parkaryotae + eukaryotes and eocytes + Karyotae) and suggested a 5 primary kingdom scheme (Eukaryota, Eocyta, Methanobacteria, Halobacteria, and Eubacteria) based on ribosomal structure and a 4 primary kingdom scheme (Eukaryota, Eocyta, Methanobacteria, and Photocyta), bacteria being classified according to 3 major biochemical innovations: photosynthesis (Photocyta), methanogenesis (Methanobacteria), and sulfur respiration (Eocyta). He has also discovered evidence that Gram-negative bacteria arose from a symbiosis between 2 Gram-positive bacteria.
Despite there being no official and complete classification of prokaryotes, the names (nomenclature) given to prokaryotes are regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code), a book which contains general considerations, principles, rules, and various notes, and advises in a similar fashion to the nomenclature codes of other groups.
The taxa which have been correctly described are reviewed in Bergey's manual of Systematic Bacteriology, which aims to aid in the identification of species and is considered the highest authority. An online version of the taxonomic outline of bacteria and archaea is available .
The International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology/International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSB/IJSEM) is a peer reviewed journal which acts as the official international forum for the publication of new prokaryotic taxa. If a species is published in a different peer review journal, the author can submit a request to IJSEM with the appropriate description, which if correct, the new species will be featured in the Validation List of IJSEM.
Bacteria were at first classified based solely on their shape (vibrio, bacillus, coccus etc.), presence of endospores, gram stain, aerobic conditions and motility. This system changed with the study of metabolic phenotypes, where metabolic characteristics were used. Recently, with the advent of molecular phylogeny, several genes are used to identify species, the most important of which is the 16S rRNA gene, followed by 23S, ITS region, gyrB and others to confirm a better resolution. The quickest way to identify to match an isolated strain to a species or genus today is done by amplifying it's 16S gene with universal primers and sequence the 1.4kb amplicon and submit it to a specialised web-based identification database, namely either Ribosomal Database Project, which align the sequence to other 16S sequences using infernal, a secondary structure bases global alignment, or ARB SILVA, which aligns sequences via SINA (SILVA incremental aligner), which does a local alignment of a seed and extends it .
Candidatus is a component of the taxonomic name for a bacterium that cannot be maintained in a Bacteriology Culture Collection. It is an interim taxonomic status for noncultivable organisms. e.g. "Candidatus Pelagibacter ubique"
Bacteria divide asexually and for the most part do not show regionalisms ("Everything is everywhere"), therefore the concept of species, which works best for animals, becomes entirely a matter of judgement.
The number of named species of bacteria and archaea (approximately 13,000) is surprisingly small considering their early evolution, genetic diversity and residence in all ecosystems. The reason for this is the differences in species concepts between the bacteria and macro-organisms, the difficulties in growing/characterising in pure culture (a prerequisite to naming new species, vide supra) and extensive horizontal gene transfer blurring the distinction of species.
The most commonly accepted definition is the polyphasic species definition, which takes into account both phenotypic and genetic differences.
However, a quicker diagnostic ad hoc threshold to separate species is less than 70% DNA–DNA hybridisation, which corresponds to less than 97% 16S DNA sequence identity. It has been noted that if this were applied to animal classification, the order primates would be a single species.
For this reason, more stringent species definitions based on whole genome sequences have been proposed.
Pathology vs. phylogeny
Ideally, taxonomic classification should reflect the evolutionary history of the taxa, i.e. the phylogeny. Although some exceptions are present when the phenotype differs amongst the group, especially from a medical standpoint. Some examples of problematic classifications follow.
In the family Enterobacteriaceae of the class Gammaproteobacteria, the species in the genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) from an evolutionary point of view are strains of the species Escherichia coli (polyphyletic), but due to genetic differences cause different medical conditions in the case of the pathogenic strains.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.
Yersinia pestis is in effect a strain of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, but with a pathogenicity island that confers a drastically different pathology (Black plague and tuberculosis-like symptoms respectively) which arose 15,000 to 20,000 years ago.
In the gammaproteobacterial order Pseudomonadales, the genus Azotobacter and the species Azomonas macrocytogenes are actually members of the genus Pseudomonas, but were misclassified due to nitrogen fixing capabilities and the large size of the genus Pseudomonas which renders classification problematic. This will probably rectified in the close future.
Another example of a large genus with nested genera is the genus Bacillus, in which the genera Paenibacillus and Brevibacillus are nested clades. There is insufficient genomic data at present to fully and effectively correct taxonomic errors in Bacillus.
Based on molecular data it was shown that the genus Agrobacterium is nested in Rhizobium and the Agrobacterium species transferred to the genus Rhizobium (resulting in the following comp. nov.: Rhizobium radiobacter (formerly known as A. tumefaciens), R. rhizogenes, R. rubi, R. undicola and R. vitis) Given the plant pathogenic nature of Agrobacterium species, it was proposed to maintain the genus Agrobacterium and the latter was counter-argued
Taxonomic names are written in italics (or underlined when handwritten) with a majuscule first letter with the exception of epithets for species and subspecies. Despite it being common in zoology, tautonyms (e.g. Bison bison) are not acceptable and names of taxa used in zoology, botany or mycology cannot be reused for Bacteria (Botany and Zoology do share names).
Nomenclature is the set of rules and conventions which govern the names of taxa. The difference in nomenclature between the various kingdoms/domains is reviewed in.
For Bacteria, valid names must have a Latin or Neolatin name and can only use basic latin letters (w and j inclusive, see History of the Latin alphabet for these), consequently hyphens, accents and other letters are not accepted and should be transliterated correctly (e.g. ß=ss). Ancient Greek being written in the Greek alphabet, needs to be transliterated into the Latin alphabet.
When compound words are created, a connecting vowel is needed depending on the origin of the preceding word, regardless of the word that follows, unless the latter starts with a vowel in which case no connecting vowel is added. If the first compound is Latin then the connecting vowel is an -i-, whereas if the first compound is Greek, the connecting vowel is an -o-.
For the Prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) the rank kingdom is not used (although some authors refer to phyla as kingdoms)
If a new or amended species is placed in new ranks, according to Rule 9 of the Bacteriologocal Code the name is formed by the addition of an appropriate suffix to the stem of the name of the type genus. For subclass and class the recommendation from is generally followed, resulting in a neutral plural, however a few names do not follow this and instead keep into account graeco-latin grammar (e.g. the female plurals Thermotogae, Aquificae and Chlamydiae, the male plurals Chloroflexi, Bacilli and Deinococci and the greek plurals Spirochaetes, Gemmatimonadetes and Chrysiogenetes).
Phyla are not covered by the Bacteriological code, however, the scientific community generally follows the Ncbi and Lpsn taxonomy, where the name of the phylum is generally the plural of the type genus, with the exception of the Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria and Proteobacteria, whose names do not stem from a genus name. The higher taxa proposed by Cavalier-Smith are generally disregarded by the molecular phylogeny community (e.g.) (vide supra).
For the Archaea the suffix -archaeota is used. For bacterial phyla it was proposed that the suffix -bacteria be used for phyla.
Consequently for main phyla the name of the phyla is the same as the first described class:
An exception is the phylum Deinococcus–Thermus, which bears a hyphenated pair of genera—only non-accented Latin letters are accepted for valid names, but phyla are not officially recognised.
More recently it has been proposed to amend the Bacteriological Code to specify -aeota as the ending for bacterial phyla and that the names be derived from a type class within the phylum. This would require the following changes:
Several species are named after people, either the discoverer or a famous person in the field of microbiology, for example Salmonella is after D.E. Salmon, who discovered it (albeit as "Bacillus typhi").
For the generic epithet, all names derived from people must be in the female nominative case, either by changing the ending to -a or to the diminutive -ella, depending on the name.
For the specific epithet, the names can be converted into either adjectival form (adding -nus (m.), -na (f.), -num (n.) according to the gender of the genus name) or the genitive of the latinised name.
Many species (the specific epithet) are named after the place they are present or found (e.g. Thiospirillum jenense). Their names are created by forming an adjective by joining the locality's name with the ending -ensis (m. or f.) or ense (n.) in agreement with the gender of the genus name, unless a classical Latin adjective exists for the place. However, names of places should not be used as nouns in the genitive case.
Despite the fact that some hetero/homogeneus colonies or biofilms of bacteria have names in English (e.g. dental plaque or Star jelly), no bacterial species has a vernacular/trivial/common name in English.
For names in the singular form, plurals cannot be made (singulare tantum) as would imply multiple groups with the same label and not multiple members of that group (by analogy, in English, chairs and tables are types of furniture, which cannot be used in the plural form "furnitures" to describe both members), conversely names plural form are pluralia tantum. However, a partial exception to this is made by the use of vernacular names.
However, to avoid repetition of taxonomic names which break the flow of prose, vernacular names of members of a genus or higher taxa are often used and recommended, these are formed by writing the name of the taxa in sentence case roman ("standard" in MS Office) type, therefore treating the proper noun as an English common noun (e.g. the salmonellas), although there is some debate about the grammar of plurals, which can either be regular plural by adding -(e)s (the salmonellas) or using the ancient Greek or Latin plural form (irregular plurals) of the noun (the salmonellae); the latter is problematic as the plural of - bacter would be -bacteres, while the plural of myces (N.L. masc. n. from Gr. masc. n. mukes) is mycetes.
Customs are present for certain names, such as those ending in -monas are converted into -monad (one pseudomonad, two aeromonads and not -monades).
Before the advent of molecular phylogeny, many higher taxonomic groupings had only trivial names, which are still used today, some of which are polyphyletic, such as Rhizobacteria. Some higher taxonomic trivial names are:
The abbreviation for species is sp. (plural spp.) and is used after a generic epithet to indicate a species of that genus. Often used to denote a strain of a genus for which the species is not known either because has the organism has not been described yet as a species or insufficient tests were conducted to identify it. For example Halomonas sp. GFAJ-1
If a bacterium is known and well-studied but not culturable, it is given the term Candidatus in its name
A basonym is original name of a new combination, namely the first name given to a taxa before it was reclassified
A synonym is an alternative name for a taxa, i.e. a taxa was erroneously described twice
When a taxon is transferred it becomes a new combination (comb. nov.) or nomina nova (nom. nov.)
^van Leeuwenhoek A (1700). "Part of a Letter from Mr Antony van Leeuwenhoek, concerning the Worms in Sheeps Livers, Gnats, and Animalcula in the Excrements of Frogs". Philosophical Transactions. 22 (260–276): 509–518. Bibcode:1700RSPT...22..509V. doi:10.1098/rstl.1700.0013.
^van Leeuwenhoek A (1702). "Part of a Letter from Mr Antony van Leeuwenhoek, F. R. S. concerning Green Weeds Growing in Water, and Some Animalcula Found about Them". Philosophical Transactions. 23 (277–288): 1304–11. Bibcode:1702RSPT...23.1304V. doi:10.1098/rstl.1702.0042.
^ abcMurray, R.G.E., Holt, J.G. (2005). The history of Bergey’s Manual. In: Garrity, G.M., Boone, D.R. & Castenholz, R.W. (eds., 2001). Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 1-14. link. [See p. 2.]
^Pot, B., Gillis, M., and De Ley, J., The genus Aquaspirillum. In: Balows, A., Trüper, H.G., Dworkin, M., Harder, W., Schleifer, K.-H. (Eds.). The prokaryotes, 2nd ed, vol. 3. Springer-Verlag. New York. 1991
^ abC. Von Nägeli (1857). R. Caspary (ed.). "Bericht über die Verhandlungen der 33. Versammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte, gehalten in Bonn von 18 bis 24 September 1857" [Report on the negotiations on 33 Meeting of German Natural Scientists and Physicians, held in Bonn, 18 to 24 September 1857]. Botanische Zeitung. 15: 749–776. <[archive.org]>
^PACINI (F.): Osservazione microscopiche e deduzioni patologiche sul cholera asiatico. Gazette Medicale de Italiana Toscano Firenze, 1854, 6, 405-412.
^EHRENBERG (C.G.): Dritter Beitrag zur Erkenntniss grosser Organisation in der Richtung des kleinsten Raumes. Physikalische Abhandlungen der Koeniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin aus den Jahren 1833-1835, 1835, pp. 143-336.
^EHRENBERG (C.G.): Dritter Beitrag zur Erkenntniss grosser Organisation in der Richtung des kleinsten Raumes. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin) aus den Jahre 1833-1835, pp. 143-336.
^EHRENBERG (C.G.): Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Organization der Infusorien und ihrer geographischen Verbreitung besonders in Sibirien. Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1832, 1830, 1-88.
^GIBBONS N.E.; MURRAY R.G.E. (1978). "Proposals concerning the higher taxa of bacteria". International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 28: 1–6. doi:10.1099/00207713-28-1-1.
^ abGeorge M. Garrity: Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. 2. Auflage. Springer, New York, 2005, Volume 2: The Proteobacteria, Part B: The Gammaproteobacteria
^MURRAY (R.G.E.): The higher taxa, or, a place for everything...? In: N.R. KRIEG and J.G. HOLT (ed.) Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, vol. 1, The Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1984, p. 31-34
^ abcCavalier-Smith, T (2002). "The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the universal tree and bacterial megaclassification". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 52 (Pt 1): 7–76. doi:10.1099/00207713-52-1-7. PMID11837318.
^Skophammer, R. G.; Servin, J. A.; Herbold, C. W.; Lake, J. A. (2007). "Evidence for a Gram-positive, Eubacterial Root of the Tree of Life". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (8): 1761–1768. doi:10.1093/molbev/msm096. PMID17513883.
^Lake, J. A.; Henderson, E.; Clark, M. W.; Scheinman, A.; Oakes, M. I. (1986). "Mapping evolution with three dimensional ribosome structure". Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 7: 131–136. doi:10.1016/S0723-2020(86)80135-7.
^Gevers, D.; Cohan, F. M.; Lawrence, J. G.; Spratt, B. G.; Coenye, T.; Feil, E. J.; Stackebrandt, E.; Van De Peer, Y. V.; Vandamme, P.; Thompson, F. L.; Swings, J. (2005). "Opinion: Re-evaluating prokaryotic species". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 3 (9): 733–739. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1236. PMID16138101.
^Wayne, L. (1988). "International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology: Announcement of the report of the ad hoc Committee on Reconciliation of Approaches to Bacterial Systematics". Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Mikrobiologie und Hygiene. Series A: Medical Microbiology, Infectious Diseases, Virology, Parasitology. 268 (4): 433–434. doi:10.1016/s0176-6724(88)80120-2. PMID3213314.
^Stackebrandt, E; Goebel, B.M. (1994). "Taxonomic note: a place for DNA–DNA reassociation and 16S rDNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology". Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 44 (4): 846–849. doi:10.1099/00207713-44-4-846.
^Young, J. M.; Park, D. -C. (2007). "Probable synonymy of the nitrogen-fixing genus Azotobacter and the genus Pseudomonas". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 57 (12): 2894–2901. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64969-0. PMID18048745.
^Xu, D; Côté, JC (2003). "Phylogenetic relationships between Bacillus species and related genera inferred from comparison of 3' end 16S rDNA and 5' end 16S-23S ITS nucleotide sequences". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 53 (Pt 3): 695–704. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02346-0. PMID12807189.
^Young, J.; Kuykendall, L.; Martínez-Romero, E.; Kerr, A.; Sawada, H. (2001). "A revision of Rhizobium Frank 1889, with an emended description of the genus, and the inclusion of all species of Agrobacterium Conn 1942 and Allorhizobium undicola de Lajudie et al. 1998 as new combinations: Rhizobium radiobacter, R. Rhizogenes, R. Rubi, R. Undicola and R. Vitis". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 51 (Pt 1): 89–103. doi:10.1099/00207713-51-1-89. PMID11211278.
^Farrand, S.; Van Berkum, P.; Oger, P. (2003). "Agrobacterium is a definable genus of the family Rhizobiaceae". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 53 (Pt 5): 1681–1687. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02445-0. PMID13130068.
^Young, J.; Kuykendall, L.; Martínez-Romero, E.; Kerr, A.; Sawada, H. (2003). "Classification and nomenclature of Agrobacterium and Rhizobium". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 53 (Pt 5): 1689–1695. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02762-0. PMID13130069.
^C. Jeffrey. 1989. Biological Nomenclature, 3rd ed. Edward Arnold, London, 86 pp.
^ abcdHelp! Latin! How to avoid the most common mistakes while giving Latin names to newly discovered prokaryotes. Microbiología (Sociedad Española de Microbiología), 1996, 12, 473-475. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 7 October 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2011.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^STACKEBRANDT, E.; RAINEY; WARD-RAINEY, N.L. (1997). "Proposal for a new hierarchic classification system, Actinobacteria classis nov". Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 47 (2): 479–491. doi:10.1099/00207713-47-2-479.
^Murray RGE. (1984). "The higher taxa, or, a place for everything…?". In Krieg NR, Holt JG (ed.). Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology. 1. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co. p. 33.
^Oren A, Da Costa MS, Garrity GM, Rainey FA, Rosselló-Móra R, Schink B, Sutcliffe I, Trujillo ME, Whitman WB (2015). "Proposal to include the rank of phylum in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes". Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65 (11): 4284–4287. doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.000664. PMID26654112.
^SCHROETER (J.). In: F. COHN (ed.), Kryptogamenflora von Schlesien. Band 3, Heft 3, Pilze. J.U. Kern's Verlag, Breslau, 1885-1889, pp. 1-814.