And if I can correct the web URL you gave:
http://www.cme.msu.edu/Bergeys/
((U))
M
"Ashwan" <oook at rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:FA5U9.528352$GR5.285323 at rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> "Michael" <muirhead at island.net> wrote in message
> news:avqklu01f0a at enews1.newsguy.com...> >
> > " S. marcescens" <styunrh at nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Y24U9.1840$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
>
