This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
– Merge proposal received no support in ~8 months.
It is unclear whether this database has official standing under the code of nomenclature, and perhaps this could be made clear by a merger. Alternatively, augmenting this page with the type of overview information on the IPNI page would be helpful.Nadiatalent (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the status being unclear is not a fault of the article: LPSN is not official on paper, but it is the only updated database, so de facto official. LPSN started in 1997 after the last revision of the Bacteriological code in 1990 (so not mentioned in the BC), plus it is not a collaboration and in my opinion there are some clear mistakes in the Greek etymologies. However, it is the work of one of the topmost experts in bacterial nomenclature and taxonomy, there are many editorial from IJSEM prasing it (and treating it as official), Bergey's manual advises to use and ARB-silva calls it official. The official list is in Bergey's manual that for half the phyla is 10 years out of date. This can be added to the text with references if it helps, but I am not sure how merging it would improve this aspect. It does need work though... (not sure what) --Squidonius (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A merger would also mix apples and oranges. A standard (code) of nomenclature, i.e. rules for how to name things, is not the same thing as a database of things named according to such rules. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]