"Michael" <muirhead at island.net> wrote in message
news:avqklu01f0a at enews1.newsguy.com...
>> " S. marcescens" <styunrh at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Y24U9.1840$fC4.1542 at newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...> > > > "Microbacterium" isn't a taxonomically-recognized genus of
> > microorganism,
> > > > nor is it even a word with a generally agreed upon real-world
> > definition.
> >
> > Hi! Microbacterium actually is a recognised geneus of bacteria.
> > According to the Wiley Dictionary of Microbiology and Microbiology
it's a
> > Gram positive, asporogenous, non-motile rods commonly found in
milk.
>> Wiley's is dead wrong, if I can be as bold as to say so. They're
talking
> about "mycobacteria" in the same way as G.W. Bush talks about
"newkyuler"
> weapons.
>> Look it up... not in a dictionary, but in the actual taxomomy (and
the
> taxonomic history) of the planet's lifeforms.
>> ((U))
> M
Actually Michael... Microbacterium is a recognised species and you
WILL find it in taxonomic histories.. and the dictionary S. was
talking about was the Wiley Dictionary of Microbiology, not an
ordinary English dictionary. But if there still is a problem with
believing that, then the best source for bacterial taxonomy is
Bergey's Manual. So here to (hopefully) end this... is the
classifications from the March 2001 classification of Bergey's Manual,
available at the Bergey's Manual Trust Home page at Michigan State
University (http://www.cme.mse.edu/bergeys/)
Phylum Actinobacteria
Class Actinobacteria
Order Actinomycetales
Family Microbacteriaceae
Genus Microbacterium
er... and as I am a grad student at the Dept of Microbiology and
Molecular Genetics at MSU, I can vouch for the veracity! :-)
Ashwan
