HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Young, J. M. Articles by Sawada, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Young, J. M. Articles by Sawada, H. Agricola Articles by Young, J. M. Articles by Sawada, H.

Classification and nomenclature of Agrobacterium and Rhizobium – a reply to Farrand et al. (2003)

¹ Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland 1003, New Zealand
² Plant Sciences Institute, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
³ Centro de Investigación sobre Fijación de Nitrógeno, UNAM. AP 565 - A, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
⁴ 419 Carrington Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
⁵ National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences, 3-1-1 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan

Correspondence
J. M. Young
youngj{at}LandcareResearch.co.nz

Farrand et al. [Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 53 (2003), 1681–1687] have presented a critique of the proposal of Young et al. [Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 51 (2001), 89–103] to revise the nomenclature and classification of Rhizobium. They argued that Young et al. (2001) are mistaken in their reclassification of all Agrobacterium species within Rhizobium, and that the resulting nomenclatural revision is ‘unnecessary and unwarranted’. These objections arise because the authors appear not to understand the role of formal nomenclature, and fail to distinguish between formal and special-purpose nomenclatures (Bacteriological Code, 1990 Revision). The arguments set out by Farrand et al. (2003) can be addressed in terms of (1) the taxonomic status of the genera Agrobacterium and Rhizobium; (2) the status of species and biovars and their nomenclature; and (3) the role of transmissible genomic elements in classification and nomenclature. Finally, an attempt is made to unravel the confusion underpinning their discussion with a consideration of the relationship between formal and special-purpose nomenclatures.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. R. Marri, L. K. Harris, K. Houmiel, S. C. Slater, and H. Ochman The Effect of Chromosome Geometry on Genetic Diversity Genetics, May 1, 2008; 179(1): 511 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Portier, M. Fischer-Le Saux, C. Mougel, C. Lerondelle, D. Chapulliot, J. Thioulouse, and X. Nesme Identification of Genomic Species in Agrobacterium Biovar 1 by AFLP Genomic Markers Appl. Envir. Microbiol., November 1, 2006; 72(11): 7123 - 7131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Vincze and S. Bowra Transformation of rhizobia with broad-host-range plasmids by using a freeze-thaw method. Appl. Envir. Microbiol., March 1, 2006; 72(3): 2290 - 2293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. D. Eardly, S. M. Nour, P. van Berkum, and R. K. Selander Rhizobial 16S rRNA and dnaK Genes: Mosaicism and the Uncertain Phylogenetic Placement of Rhizobium galegae Appl. Envir. Microbiol., March 1, 2005; 71(3): 1328 - 1335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]