Thanks, Dr. Lum. The salient part of the IJSB article for me reads as follows:
"The Chlamydiaceae, which currently has only the genus Chlamydia, is divided into two genera, Chlamydia and Chlamydophila gen. nov. . . . Chlamydophila gen. nov. assimilates the current species, Chlamydia pecorum, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Chlamydia psittaci, to form Chlamydophila pecorum comb. nov., Chlamydophila pneumoniae comb. nov. and Chlamydophila psittaci comb. nov."
I've been working for two years on a book for the general public on C. pneumoniae; should I use the term Chlamydophila pneumoniae now? Unless "The Appoved List of Bacterial Names by Victor Skerman" has been updated very recently, it is not likely to reflect the changes described above. There are 1200+ articles referring to "Chlamydia pneumoniae" in PubMed now, but only 5 referring to "Chlamydophila." Will the rest of the world follow the IJSB on this?
I like the fact that the term "Chlamydophila" would put a little more distance between my topic and the STD Chlamydia trachomatis.
I am guessing that "nov" stands for "novel" or "new."
"Gary Lum" <glum at ozemail.com.au>
A while ago someone posted a question about new Chlamydia nomenclature, a friend on a listserv found the following for me.
The questioner asked about authority on names-currently it's the Internation Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. The Appoved List of Bacterial Names by Victor Skerman is also a good read.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...