Talk:Chlamydophila
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chlamydophila article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Pronounciation[edit]
- Moving this to the talk page pending reformating in Wp style...
- Chlamydophila (Chla.my.do' phil.a. Gr. fem. n. chlamys, chlamydis a cloak; L. fem. n. phila dear, beloved; M.L. fem. n. Chlamydophila dear to the cloak). The type species for the genus Chlamydophila is Chlamydophila psittaci.
- -- MarcoTolo 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Relevance[edit]
I see people have talked about this in 2013, but now in 2018 more can be said on the issue. The cutting edge DNA techniques of 1999 aren't so hip now. 1. The study only looked at relatively small portions of the genome, instead of full genome analysis. 2. Diversity of newly discovered species since then complicate the picture, at the time of this study, there were only 6 species known. 3. Recognising Chlamydophila leaves Chlamydia no longer parsimonious, Chlamydia muridarum would need to be removed (leaving it with 2 species (as of 2018)). 4. Few have accepted this classification: the many new species described since then (2013, 2014, 2017, 2018) have been classified as Chlamydia, nothing has been described recently as Chlamydophila, to my knowledge. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)