Bacterial taxonomy is subfield oftaxonomy devoted to the classification ofbacteria specimens intotaxonomic ranks.Archaeal taxonomy are governed by the same rules.
Bacterial taxonomy is the classification of strains within the domain Bacteria into hierarchies of similarity. This classification is similar to that ofplants,mammals, and other taxonomies. However, biologists specializing in different areas have developed differing taxonomic conventions over time. For example, bacterial taxonomists nametypes based on descriptions ofstrains. Zoologists among others use a type specimen instead.
Bacteria (prokaryotes, together with Archaea) share many common features. These commonalities include the lack of a nuclear membrane, unicellularity, division by binary-fission and generally small size. The various species can be differentiated through the comparison of 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 (seeBacterial phyla andTimeline of evolution)
Metabolism: Different bacteria may have different metabolic abilities (seeMicrobial metabolism)
Environment: Different bacteria thrive in different environments, such as high/low temperature and salt (seeExtremophiles)
Bacteria were first observed byAntonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, using a single-lensmicroscope of his own design.[3] He did not distinguish bacteria as a separate type of microorganism, calling all microorganisms, including bacteria, protists, and microscopic animals, "animalcules". He published his observations in a series of letters to theRoyal Society.[4][5][6]
Tree of Life inGenerelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866)[10]
In 1857, bacteria were classified asplants constituting the classSchizomycetes, which along with theSchizophyceae (blue green algae/Cyanobacteria) formed the phylumSchizophyta.[11]
Haeckel in 1866 placed the group in the phylumMoneres (from μονήρης: simple) in the kingdomProtista and defines them as completely structureless and homogeneous organisms, consisting only of a piece of plasma.[10] He subdivided the phylum into two groups:[10]
die Gymnomoneren (no envelope)
Protogenes – such asProtogenes 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[12]
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. pl. "Moneres") in German
Bacillus – a genus of spore-forming rod shaped bacteria first described in 1835[13]
The classification ofCyanobacteria (colloquially "blue green algae") has been fought between being algae or bacteria (for example, Haeckel classifiedNostoc in the phylum Archephyta of Algae[10]).
in 1875, Cohn[19] recognized fourtribes: Spherobacteria, Microbacteria, Desmobacteria, and Spirobacteria. Stanier and van Neil in 1941[20] recognized the kingdom Monera with two phyla, Myxophyta and Schizomycetae, the latter comprising classes Eubacteriae (three orders), Myxobacteriae (one order), and Spirochetae (one order). In 1962, Bisset[21] distinguished 1 class and 4 orders: Eubacteriales, Actinomycetales, Streptomycetales, and Flexibacteriales.Walter Migula's system (1897),[22] which was the most widely accepted system of its time and included all then-known species but was based only on morphology, contained the three basic groups Coccaceae, Bacillaceae, and Spirillaceae, but also Trichobacterinae for filamentous bacteria. Orla-Jensen in 1909[23] established two orders: Cephalotrichinae (seven families) and Peritrichinae (presumably with only one family). Bergey et al. in 1925[24] presented a classification which generally followed the 1920 Final Report of the Society of American Bacteriologists Committee (Winslow et al.), which divided class Schizomycetes into four orders: Myxobacteriales, Thiobacteriales, Chlamydobacteriales, and Eubacteriales, with a fifth group being four genera considered intermediate between bacteria and protozoans:Spirocheta,Cristospira,Saprospira, andTreponema.
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.[25] 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 (1917), the names were in German and not in Latin.[29]
The first edition of theBacteriological Code in 1947 set a standardised system and authority for the classification of Bacteria.[30]
A. R. Prévot's system (1958)[31][32] had four subphyla and eight classes, as follows:
Eubacteriales (classes Asporulales and Sporulales)
Mycobacteriales (classes Actinomycetales, Myxobacteriales, and Azotobacteriales)
Algobacteriales (classes Siderobacteriales and Thiobacteriales)
Despite there being little agreement on the major subgroups of theBacteria,Gram staining results were most commonly used as a classification tool. Consequently, until the advent of molecular phylogeny, the KingdomProkaryota was divided into four divisions,[41] A classification scheme still formally followed by Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology for tome order[42]
Gracilicutes (gram-negative)
Photobacteria (photosynthetic): classOxyphotobacteriae (water as electron donor, includes the orderCyanobacteriales=blue-green algae, now phylumCyanobacteria) and classAnoxyphotobacteriae (anaerobic phototrophs), orders:Rhodospirillales andChlorobiales
Scotobacteria (non-photosynthetic, now theProteobacteria and other gram-negative nonphotosynthetic phyla)
Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship between the archaea and other forms of life.Eukaryotes are colored red, archaea green andbacteria blue. Adapted from Ciccarelliet al.[44]
Woese argued that the bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes represent separate lines of descent that diverged early on from an ancestral colony of organisms.[45][46] However, a few biologists argue that the Archaea and Eukaryota arose from a group of bacteria.[47] In any case, it is thought thatviruses and archaea began relationships approximately two billion years ago, and thatco-evolution may have been occurring between members of these groups.[48] 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.[49] Since the Archaea and Bacteria are no more related to each other than they are to eukaryotes, the termprokaryote's only surviving meaning is "not a eukaryote", limiting its value.[50]
With improved methodologies it became clear that the methanogenic bacteria were profoundly different and were (erroneously) believed to be relics of ancient bacteria[51] thusCarl Woese, regarded as the forerunner of the molecular phylogeny revolution, identified three primary lines of descent: theArchaebacteria, theEubacteria, and theUrkaryotes, the latter now represented by the nucleocytoplasmic component of theEukaryotes.[52] These lineages were formalised into the rank Domain (regio in Latin) which divided Life into 3 domains: theEukaryota, theArchaea and theBacteria.[2]
In 2023, theProkaryotic Code added the ranks of domain and kingdom to the prokaryotic nomenclature. The names ofBacteria andArchaea are validly-published taxa following Oren and Goker's publication that use these new rules.[53]
In 1987 Carl Woese divided theEubacteria into 11 divisions based on16S ribosomal RNA (SSU) sequences, which with several additions are still used today.[54][55]
Oren and Goker has also validly published a number of kingdoms as a layer higher than the division/phylum:[53]
While the three domain system is widely accepted,[56] some authors have opposed it for various reasons.
One prominent scientist who opposed the three domain system wasThomas Cavalier-Smith, who proposed that theArchaea and theEukaryotes (theNeomura) stem from Gram positive bacteria (Posibacteria), which in turn derive from gram negative bacteria (Negibacteria) based on several logical arguments,[57][58] which are highly controversial and generally disregarded by the molecular biology community (c.f. reviewers' comments on,[58]e.g. Eric Bapteste is "agnostic" regarding the conclusions) and are often not mentioned in reviews (e.g.[59]) due to the subjective nature of the assumptions made.[60]
However, despite there being a wealth of statistically supported studies towards the rooting of the tree of life between theBacteria and theNeomura by means of a variety of methods,[61] 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[57]—there are a few studies which have drawn different conclusions, some of which place the root in the phylumFirmicutes with nested archaea.[62][63][64]
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.[65][66][67] Hori and Osawa's molecular analysis indicated a link between Metabacteria (=Archeota) and eukaryotes.[68] The only cladistic analyses for bacteria based on classical evidence largely corroborate Gupta's results (seecomprehensive 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, andPhotocyta), bacteria being classified according to 3 major biochemical innovations: photosynthesis (Photocyta),methanogenesis (Methanobacteria), andsulfur respiration (Eocyta).[69][70][71] He has also discovered evidence that Gram-negative bacteria arose from a symbiosis between 2 Gram-positive bacteria.[72]
Classification is the grouping of organisms into progressively more inclusive groups based on phylogeny and phenotype, while nomenclature is the application of formal rules for naming organisms.[73]
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 Prokaryotes (Prokaryotic Code), a book which contains general considerations, principles, rules, and various notes, and advises[74] in a similar fashion to thenomenclature codes of other groups.
As taxa proliferated, computer aided taxonomic systems were developed. Early non networked identification software entering widespread use was produced by Edwards 1978, Kellogg 1979, Schindler, Duben, and Lysenko 1979, Beers and Lockhard 1962, Gyllenberg 1965, Holmes and Hill 1985, Lapage et al 1970 and Lapage et al 1973.[75]: 63
Today the taxa which have been correctly described are reviewed inBergey's manual of Systematic Bacteriology, which aims to aid in the identification of species and is considered the highest authority.[42] An online version of the taxonomic outline of bacteria and archaea (TOBA) is available[1].
TheInternational 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.
A few other nomenclatural systems have been proposed to correct for perceived shortcomings in theProkaryotic Code system:
SeqCode is a separate set of rules that govern prokaryotic nomenclature. Instead of using cultured strains as type material, it uses genome sequences. The SeqCode organization maintains its own database of names.[77]
GTDB is a computer database that gives a prokaryotic nomenclature based on marker-gene phylogeny and its own rules. Some of its results have been adapted into theProkaryotic Code andSeqCode systems.[78][79]
These following systems provide a taxonomy database under moread hoc rules:
TheGenBank taxonomy browser includes all taxa that were used in GenBank submissions, with significant changes made by the curator. It's not limited to prokaryotes.[80]
'The All-Species Living Tree' Project (SILVA LTP) provides a database of 16S rRNA sequences annotated with its own type of taxonomy. Ribosomal database project (RDP) is a similar project.[81]
Greengenes is a system that combines the Web of Life phylogeny with 16S data and names from GTDB and LTP, as of version 2. It offers the 16S V4 region sequences with their placement in the tree.[82]
Open Tree of Life aims to be phylogenetic and is not limited to prokaryotes.
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.[83] Recently, with the advent of molecular phylogeny, several genes are used to identify species, the most important of which is the16S rRNA gene, followed by23S,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 its 16S gene with universal primers and sequence the 1.4kb amplicon and submit it to a specialised web-based identification database, namely eitherRibosomal Database Project[2]Archived 19 August 2020 at theWayback Machine, which align the sequence to other 16S sequences using infernal, a secondary structure bases global alignment,[84][85] orARB SILVA, which aligns sequences via SINA (SILVA incremental aligner), which does a local alignment of a seed and extends it[3].[86]
Candidatus is a component of thetaxonomic 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 judgment.
The number of named species of bacteria and archaea (approximately 21,000)[88] 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 thebacteria and macro-organisms, the difficulties in growing/characterising in pure culture (a prerequisite to naming new species,vide supra) and extensivehorizontal gene transfer blurring the distinction of species.[89]
The most commonly accepted definition is the polyphasic species definition, which takes into account both phenotypic and genetic differences.[90]However, a quicker diagnosticad hoc method to use a purely genetic approach, including any one of:
Less than 97% 16S DNA sequence identity. 16S and the largerribosomal DNA operon is routinely sequenced. There are relatively conserved parts from which broadly applicable PCR primers can be constructed.[91] The 97% threshold have proven too loose compared to DDH and ANI. A new suggested value is 98.65%.[92] More expensive comparisons such as DDH can be omitted if the 16S similarity is low enough for two strains to obviously not be the same species.[93] Several extreme cases where two very different genomes share 99.9% 16S identity has been reported.[94]
DNA–DNA hybridisation (DDH), where less than 70% is considered different enough to be different species.[95] This method depends on the interaction between whole genomic DNA molecules and does not require sequencing. It is labor-intensive and error-prone, at least until a microplate method was introduced.[96] It is considered an important piece of taxonomic evidence as of 2013.[93]
Average nucleotide identity (ANI) andalignment fraction (AF) describe the similarity between two genome sequences. In one definition that makes use of these metrics, two genomes are said to be in the same species if ANI ≥96.5% and AF ≥60%.[97] The ANI threshold is based on an observed discontinuity in ANI distributions among bacteria, where a large gap appears between intraspecific and interspecific comparisons. However, the gap does not necessarily appear at the same location for all combinations of bacterial genera and ANI methods.[98] ANI has been accepted as taxonomic evidence in place of DDH.[99]
"Digital DDH" (dDDH) is similar to ANI and AF in principle, but it is tuned to produce a single value comparable to wet-lab DDH percentage.[93] The species threshold is, as in DDH, 70%. It has been accepted as taxonomic evidence in place of DDH.[99]
It has been noted that if the 70% DDH threshold were applied to animal classification, the orderprimates would be a single species.[100] For this reason, more stringent species definitions based on whole genome sequences have been proposed. Specifically, Wright et al. (2018) goes beyond ANI and AF to propose defining species as a group in which the maximum distance between any two members is greater than the minimum distance with any outsider. This criterion can be put on top of ANI+AF without introducing too many splits.[97]
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.
The newaverage nucleotide identity (ANI) criterion, as used byGTDB, groups most samples (includingShigella) into one species, but spreads the rest in five species. A definition using the biological species concept (specifically, presence of recombination) found that all but 12 genomes tagged asE. coli in GenBank fall into one "species", with the lowest strain-to-strain ANI being 94%.[102]
Yersinia pestis is in effect a strain ofYersinia 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.[105]
In the gammaproteobacterial orderPseudomonadales, the genusAzotobacter and the speciesAzomonas macrocytogenes are actually members of the genusPseudomonas, but were misclassified due to nitrogen fixing capabilities and the large size of the genusPseudomonas which renders classification problematic.[83][106][107] This will probably rectified in the close future.
Another example of a large genus with nested genera is the genusBacillus, in which the generaPaenibacillus andBrevibacillus are nested clades.[108]
By 2020 there was enough genomic data to resolveBacillus and split out 23 genera. However, even this was insufficient to makeBacillus monophyletic, because microbiologists do not want to move the pathogenicBacillus cereus group out of the genus yet.B. cereus is separated from the type speciesB. subtilis by many genus-sized clades, many of which have been made into formal genera.[109][110]
Based on molecular data it was shown that the genusAgrobacterium is nested inRhizobium and theAgrobacterium species transferred to the genusRhizobium (resulting in the following comp. nov.:Rhizobium radiobacter (formerly known asA. tumefaciens),R. rhizogenes,R. rubi,R. undicola andR. vitis)[111] Given the plant pathogenic nature ofAgrobacterium species, it was proposed to maintain the genusAgrobacterium[112] and the latter was counter-argued.[113]
The problem was resolved in the 2010s by the reinstatement ofAgrobacterium via splitting genera, afterRhizobium was also split a few times.[114][115] The genusAgrobacterium is to only include the clade clustered around the type speciesAgrobacterium radiobacter, with a clear synapomorphy in the form of the protelomerasetelA gene.[116][117]
Guptaet al. 2018a proposed to split the largely monophyletic but arguably rather largeMycobacterium into five genera.[118] The medical community opposed this change.[119] Either taxonomic opinion can be consideredvalid, according to LPSN, as the Gupta names appeared in Validation List 181.[120] The LPSN/LoRN deems the most of the valid new mycobacterial names " (and not recommended for medical use)" in the website's taxonomic opinion.
The heavily polyphyleticMycoplasma was split into six genera in three families by Guptaet al. 2018b.[121] The changes were made valid in Validation List 184.[122] Medical researchers firmly opposed the renaming and seek to have theICSPreject the new names,[123] but the ICSP Judicial Commission did not grant this request. (As with the above case, the older names remain validly published, so it is still acceptable to use these names under theProkaryotic Code.)[124] The LPSN/LoRN deems the most of the valid new mycoplasmal names "correct name (and explicitly explicit for medical use)" in the website's own taxonomic opinion.
TheJournal of Clinical Microbiology publishes a series of regular updates for isolates derived from human clinical specimens (mainly for human medicine) and another series for isolates derived from domestic animals (mainly for animal medicine). These lists include new taxa as well as revisions in taxonomy. A list for the previous year is usually published near the end of the current year; for example, the December 2024 updates covered changes in 2023.[126][127]
Ad Hoc Committee on Mitigating Changes in Prokaryotic Nomenclature
A number of bacteriologists involved in theICSP have formed an Ad Hoc Committee on Mitigating Changes in Prokaryotic Nomenclature. Among other initiatives, the committee produces a List of Recommended Names for bacteria of medical importance (LoRN), which delays the acceptance of name changes as "correct" for the medical world to adjust and catch up. A description of the mechanism can be found inLPSN[128] and so is the list itself. As of June 2025[update], the oldest suspended names on the list are from 2020:Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus andNiallia circulans.[129]
The ad hoc committee claims to take a "parataxonomic" approach, an approach that is fully compatible with theProkaryotic Code and balanced between "antitaxonomic" (overly conservative) and "hypertaxonomic" (overly phylogenetic and splitting) views. The ad hoc committee and its LoRN decides the choice ofcorrect name on LPSN, some of which is marked "specifically recommended for medical use". Besides suspending a new name or changing the taxonomic opinion of LPSN in some other way, the ad hoc committee can also petition the ICSP Judicial Committee to permanently decline a proposal by marking the names within asrejected names.[130] The ad hoc committee technically has no direct influence on the validation of names or the decisions of the Judicial Committee, but many of its members sit on the editorial board ofIJSEM, have participated in authoring aValidation List, or have written a Judicial Opinion.
An example of a valid name being set aside isBorreliellaAdeolu and Gupta 2015, which is extremely unpopular amongBorrelia researchers.[131] A request to rejectBorreliella from 2015 was declined by the Judicial Committee.[132]
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.[133]
For Bacteria, valid names must have a Latin or Neolatin name and can only use basic latin letters (w and j inclusive, seeHistory of the Latin alphabet for these), consequently hyphens, accents and other letters are not accepted and should be transliterated correctly (e.g. ß=ss).[134] Ancient Greek being written in the Greek alphabet, needs to betransliterated into the Latin alphabet.
Whencompound 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-.[135]
For theProkaryotes (Bacteria andArchaea) the rank kingdom has not been used till 2024[136] (although some authors referred to phyla as kingdoms[73]). The category of kingdom was included into the Bacteriological Code in November 2023,[137] the first four proposals (Bacillati,Fusobacteriati,Pseudomonadati,Thermotogati) were validly published in January 2024.[53]
If a new or amended species is placed in new ranks, according to Rule 9 of the Bacteriological Code the name is formed by the addition of an appropriate suffix to the stem of the name of the type genus.[74] For subclass and class the recommendation from[138] 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 pluralsThermotogae,Aquificae andChlamydiae, the male pluralsChloroflexi,Bacilli andDeinococci and the greek pluralsSpirochaetes,Gemmatimonadetes andChrysiogenetes).[139]
Until 2021, phyla were not covered by theBacteriological code, so they were named informally.[139] This resulted in a variety of approaches to naming phyla. Some phyla, like Firmicutes, were named according to features shared across the phylum. Others, like Chlamydiae, were named using a class name or genus name as the stem (e.g.,Chlamydia). In 2021, the decision was made to include names under the Bacteriological Code. Consequently, many phylum names were updated according to the new nomenclatural rules.[140] The higher taxa proposed byCavalier-Smith[57] are generally disregarded by the molecular phylogeny community (e.g.[59]) (vide supra).
Under the new rules, the name of a phylum is derived from the type genus:
Several species are named after people, either the discoverer or a famous person in the field of microbiology, for exampleSalmonella is after D.E. Salmon, who discovered it (albeit as "Bacillus typhi"[141]).[142]
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.[135]
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.[135]
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.[135]
Despite the fact that some hetero/homogeneus colonies or biofilms of bacteria have names in English (e.g.dental plaque orstar 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 theproper noun as an Englishcommon 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.[143]
Customs are present for certain names, such as those ending in-monas are converted into -monad (one pseudomonad, two aeromonads and not -monades).
Bacteria which are theetiological cause for a disease are often referred to by the disease name followed by a describing noun (bacterium, bacillus, coccus, agent or the name of their phylum) e.g. cholera bacterium (Vibrio cholerae) or Lyme disease spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi), note also rickettsialpox (Rickettsia akari) (for more see[144]).
Treponema is converted into treponeme and the plural is treponemes and not treponemata.
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:
Blue-green algae are members of the phylum "Cyanobacteria"
Green non-sulfur bacteria are members of the phylumChloroflexota
Green sulfur bacteria are members of theChlorobiota
Purple bacteria are some, but not all, members of the phylumPseudomonadota
Purple sulfur bacteria are members of the orderChromatiales
low G+C Gram-positive bacteria are members of the phylumBacillota, regardless of GC content
high G+C Gram-positive bacteria are members of the phylumActinomycetota, regardless of GC content
Rhizobia are members of various genera of Pseudomonadota
Lactic acid bacteria are members of the orderLactobacillales
The abbreviation for species issp. (pluralspp.) 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 the organism has not been described yet as a species or insufficient tests were conducted to identify it. For exampleHalomonas sp. GFAJ-1 – see alsoopen nomenclature
If a bacterium is known and well-studied but not culturable, it is given the termCandidatus in its name
Abasonym is original name of a new combination, namely the first name given to a taxon before it was reclassified
Asynonym is an alternative name for a taxon, i.e. a taxon was erroneously described twice
^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.S2CID186209549.
^abcMurray, R.G.E., Holt, J.G. (2005). The history ofBergey'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
^Pacini, F.: Osservazione microscopiche e deduzioni patologiche sul cholera asiatico. Gazette Medicale de Italiana Toscano Firenze, 1854, 6, 405-412.
^abEhrenberg, C. G. (1835). "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, pp. 143-336.
^Ehrenberg, C. G. (1830). "Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Organization der Infusorien und ihrer geographischen Verbreitung besonders in Sibirien".Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1832, pp. 1–88.
^Chatton, É. (1925). "Pansporella perplexa: Réflexions sur la biologie et la phylogénie des protozoaires".Annales des Sciences Naturelles.10 (VII):1–84.
^Smith, Erwin F. (1905).Nomenclature and Classification in Bacteria in Relation to Plant Diseases, Vol. 1.
^Vuillemin (1913). "Genera Schizomycetum".Annales Mycologici, Vol. 11, pp. 512–527.
^Cohn, Ferdinand (1875). "Untersuchungen uber Bakterien, II".Beitrage zur Biologie der Pfanzen, Vol. 1: pp. 141–207
^Stanier and van Neil (1941). "The main outlines of bacterial classification".Journal of Bacteriology, Vol. 42, pp. 437– 466
^Migula, Walter (1897).System der Bakterien. Jena, Germany: Gustav Fischer.
^Orla-Jensen (1909). "Die Hauptlinien des naturalischen Bakteriensystems nebst einer Ubersicht der Garungsphenomene".Zentr. Bakt. Parasitenk., Vol. II, No. 22, pp. 305–346
^Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology (1925). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co. (with many subsequent editions).
^Prévot, A. R. (1958).Manuel de classification et détermination des bactéries anaérobies. Paris: Masson.
^Prévot, A. R. (1963).Bactéries in Précis de Botanique. Paris: Masson.
^Linnaeus, Carl (1735).Systemae Naturae, sive regna tria naturae, systematics proposita per classes, ordines, genera & species.
^Haeckel, Ernst (1866).Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Reimer, Berlin.
^Chatton, É. (1925). "Pansporella perplexa. Réflexions sur la biologie et la phylogénie des protozoaires".Annales des Sciences Naturelles - Zoologie et Biologie Animale. 10-VII:1–84.
^Copeland, H. (1938). "The kingdoms of organisms".Quarterly Review of Biology.13 (4):383–420.doi:10.1086/394568.S2CID84634277.
^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
^Gupta, R. S. (1998). "Life's third domain (Archaea): An established fact or an endangered paradigm?".Theoretical Population Biology.54 (2):91–104.doi:10.1006/tpbi.1998.1376.PMID9733652.
^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 (1):131–136.Bibcode:1986SyApM...7..131L.doi:10.1016/S0723-2020(86)80135-7.
^Gupta, Radhey S.; Patel, Sudip; Saini, Navneet; Chen, Shu (1 November 2020). "Robust demarcation of 17 distinct Bacillus species clades, proposed as novel Bacillaceae genera, by phylogenomics and comparative genomic analyses: description of Robertmurraya kyonggiensis sp. nov. and proposal for an emended genus Bacillus limiting it only to the members of the Subtilis and Cereus clades of species".International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.70 (11):5753–5798.doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.004475.PMID33112222.
^Kim, Mincheol; Oh, Hyun-Seok; Park, Sang-Cheol; Chun, Jongsik (1 February 2014). "Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes".International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.64 (Pt_2):346–351.doi:10.1099/ijs.0.059774-0.PMID24505072.
^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.
^Mehlen, André; Goeldner, Marcia; Ried, Sabine; Stindl, Sibylle; Ludwig, Wolfgang; Schleifer, Karl-Heinz (November 2004). "Development of a fast DNA–DNA hybridization method based on melting profiles in microplates".Systematic and Applied Microbiology.27 (6):689–695.Bibcode:2004SyApM..27..689M.doi:10.1078/0723202042369875.ISSN0723-2020.PMID15612626.
^Palmer, Marike; Steenkamp, Emma T.; Blom, Jochen; Hedlund, Brian P.; Venter, Stephanus N. (1 April 2020). "All ANIs are not created equal: implications for prokaryotic species boundaries and integration of ANIs into polyphasic taxonomy".International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.70 (4):2937–2948.doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.004124.hdl:2263/81615.PMID32242793.
^abArahal, David R.; Bull, Carolee T.; Busse, Hans-Jürgen; Christensen, Henrik; Chuvochina, Maria; Dedysh, Svetlana N.; Fournier, Pierre-Edouard; Konstantinidis, Konstantinos T.; Parker, Charles T.; Rossello-Mora, Ramon; Ventosa, Antonio; Göker, Markus (27 April 2023). "Judicial Opinions 123–127".International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.72 (12).doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.005708.hdl:10261/295959.PMID36748499.
^Mousavi SA, Österman J, Wahlberg N, Nesme X, Lavire C, Vial L, Paulin L, de Lajudie P, Lindström K (2014). "Phylogeny of theRhizobium-Allorhizobium-Agrobacterium clade supports the delineation ofNeorhizobium gen. nov".Syst Appl Microbiol.37 (3):208–215.Bibcode:2014SyApM..37..208M.doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2013.12.007.PMID24581678.
^Mousavi SA, Willems A, Nesme X, de Lajudie P, Lindström K (2015). "Revised phylogeny ofRhizobiaceae: Proposal of the delineation ofPararhizobium gen. nov., and 13 new species combinations".Syst Appl Microbiol.38 (2):84–90.Bibcode:2015SyApM..38...84M.doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2014.12.003.PMID25595870.
^Ramírez-Bahena MH, Vial L, Lassalle F, Diel B, Chapulliot D, Daubin V, Nesme X, Muller D (2014). "Single acquisition of protelomerase gave rise to speciation of a large and diverse clade within theAgrobacterium/Rhizobium supercluster characterized by the presence of a linear chromid".Mol Phylogenet Evol.73:202–207.Bibcode:2014MolPE..73..202R.doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2014.01.005.PMID24440816.
^"Genus: Mycobacteroides".lpsn.dsmz.de.Mycobacteroides is the correct name instead if this genus is regarded as a separate genus (i.e., if its nomenclatural type is not assigned to another genus whose name is validly published, legitimate and not rejected and has priority).
^Gupta, R.S.; Sawnani, S.; Adeolu, M.; Alnajar, S.; Oren, A. (2018). "Phylogenetic framework for the phylum Tenericutes based on genome sequence data: proposal for the creation of a new order Mycoplasmoidales ord. nov., containing two new families Mycoplasmoidaceae fam. nov. and Metamycoplasmataceae fam. nov. harbouring Eperythrozoon, Ureaplasma and five novel genera".Antonie van Leeuwenhoek.111 (9):1583–1630.doi:10.1007/s10482-018-1047-3.PMID29556819.S2CID254226604.
Janda, JM (September 2015). "Taxonomic update on proposed nomenclature and classification changes for bacteria of medical importance, 2013-2014".Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.83 (1):82–8.doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.04.013.PMID26014276.
Janda, JM (October 2016). "Taxonomic update on proposed nomenclature and classification changes for bacteria of medical importance, 2015".Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.86 (2):123–7.doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.06.021.PMID27435755.
Janda, JM (May 2017). "Taxonomic update on proposed nomenclature and classification changes for bacteria of medical importance, 2016".Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.88 (1):100–105.doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2017.02.003.PMID28238386.
Janda, JM (June 2019). "Proposed nomenclature or classification changes for bacteria of medical importance: Taxonomic Update 4".Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.94 (2):205–208.doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.12.009.PMID30683468.
Janda, JM (July 2020). "Proposed nomenclature or classification changes for bacteria of medical importance: taxonomic update 5".Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.97 (3) 115047.doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2020.115047.PMID32321664.
^Ad Hoc Committee on Mitigating Changes in Prokaryotic Nomenclature (2025). "Workflow of the Ad Hoc Committee on Mitigating Changes in Prokaryotic Nomenclature for compiling a list of recommended names".doi:10.5281/zenodo.15320328.{{cite web}}:Missing or empty|url= (help)
^Ad Hoc Committee on Mitigating Changes in Prokaryotic Nomenclature (2025). "Guidelines of the Ad Hoc Committee on Mitigating Changes in Prokaryotic Nomenclature".doi:10.5281/zenodo.13871707.{{cite web}}:Missing or empty|url= (help)
^Arahal, David R.; Bull, Carolee T.; Busse, Hans-Jürgen; Christensen, Henrik; Chuvochina, Maria; Dedysh, Svetlana N.; Fournier, Pierre-Edouard; Konstantinidis, Konstantinos T.; Parker, Charles T.; Rossello-Mora, Ramon; Ventosa, Antonio; Göker, Markus (27 April 2023). "Judicial Opinions 123–127".International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.72 (12).doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.005708.hdl:10261/295959.PMID36748499.
^C. Jeffrey. 1989. Biological Nomenclature, 3rd ed. Edward Arnold, London, 86 pp.
^abOren, Aharon (1 November 2023). "Emendation of Principle 8, Rules 5b, 8, 15, 33a, and Appendix 7 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes to include the categories of kingdom and domain".International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.73 (11).doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.006123.PMID37909283.
