I think that we should adopt naming [Prokaryota, Bacteria, Archea] instead of [Prokaryota, Eubacteria, Archea] or [Bacteria, Eubacteria, Archeobacteria]. At least in Polish (both originals and translations from English), Eubacteria is virtually unused word nowadays. --Taw
I thought that it was now generally agreed upon that we shouldn't use the phrase Eubacteria, ever. As far as I can tell, this was a temporary name, coined when archaea were first discovered. Archaea were first thought to be a special type of bacteria, so people at the time called them "archaebacteria", and began referring to all the older known bacteria as "eubacteria". Since DNA and RNA analysis has reclassified archaea as a separate domain, there is no more need for terminology confusion. The way I understand it, the preferred terms are now Bacteria and Archaea. Any thoughts?
- This isn't my field, but I'll say this: if the term is obsolete, it should get an article which says:
- why it's obsolete
- what it used to mean
- what we say now.
-- Tarquin 11:21 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
The current term does, indeed seem to be bacteria. I'm not sure that a separate page explaining usage is necessary: Eubacteria can redirect to bacteria, and the terminology can be explained there. Otherwise please consider the current redirecting a temporary solution that can be removed when an article is written.
- Sorry, wrong. Eubacteria is the term used to distinguish between Archaebacteria and, well, Eubacteria. The latter may not be of colloquial use, true, but among scientific communities, it is correct; in addition, Eubactera is also used to identify the kingdom Eubacteria and the domain Eubacteria. I say no redirect. Elfred (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Elfred is correct there should be no redirect. In fact, this page should be used to describe the Eubacteria Kingdom, Instead of redirecting to Bactria, A.K.A. the domain.