Order Chlamydiales
Warning: In the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature, an arrow (→) only indicates the sequence of valid publication of names and does not mean that the last name in the sequence must be used (see: Introduction).
Classification (Warning: see also the file "Classification of prokaryotes: Introduction").
For a detailed description of this taxon see Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (BMSAB).
Chlamydiales Storz and Page 1971, ordo. (Type order of the class ¤ Chlamydiae Cavalier-Smith 2002).
Type genus: ¤ Chlamydia Jones et al. 1945 (Approved Lists 1980).
Etymology: N.L. fem. n. Chlamydia, type genus of the order; suff. -ales, ending denoting an order; N.L. fem. pl. n. Chlamydiales, the Chlamydia order.
Approved Lists reference: SKERMAN (V.B.D.), McGOWAN (V.) and SNEATH (P.H.A.) (editors): Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 1980, 30, 225-420 (Approved Lists of Bacterial Names in IJSEM Online - Approved Lists of Bacterial Names Amended edition).
Original publication: STORZ (J.) and PAGE (L.A.): Taxonomy of the Chlamydiae: reasons for classifying organisms of the genus Chlamydia, family Chlamydiaceae, in a separate order, Chlamydiales ord. nov. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 1971, 21, 332-334.
→ Chlamydiales Storz and Page 1971 (Approved Lists 1980) emend. Everett et al. 1999.
Type genus: ¤ Chlamydia Jones et al. 1945 (Approved Lists 1980).
Etymology: N.L. fem. n. Chlamydia, type genus of the order; suff. -ales, ending denoting an order; N.L. fem. pl. n. Chlamydiales, the Chlamydia order.
Reference: EVERETT (K.D.E.), BUSH (R.M.) and ANDERSEN (A.A.): Emended description of the order Chlamydiales, proposal of Parachlamydiaceae fam. nov. and Simkaniaceae fam. nov., each containing one monotypic genus, revised taxonomy of the family Chlamydiaceae, including a new genus and five new species, and standards for the identification of organisms. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 1999, 49, 415-440.
Original article in IJSEM Online
Note: In a "Letter to the Editor", several bacteriologists [1] strongly object to the reclassification of the order Chlamydiales proposed by Everett et al. 1999. See also, the reply by Everett and Andersen [2].
References:
1 SCHACHTER (J.), STEPHENS (R.S.), TIMMS (P.), KUO (C.), BAVOIL (P.M.), BIRKELUND (S.), BOMAN (J.), CALDWELL (H.), CAMPBELL (L.A.), CHERNESKY (M.), CHRISTIANSEN (G.), CLARKE (I.N.), GAYDOS (C.), GRAYSTON (J.T.), HACKSTADT (T.), HSIA (R.), KALTENBOEK (B.), LEINONNEN (M.), OJCIUS (D.) [not OCJIUS as cited in the paper published by IJSEM], McCLARTY (G.), ORFILA (J.), PEELING (R.), PUOLAKKAINEN (M.), QUINN (T.C.), RANK (R.G.), RAULSTON (J.), RIDGEWAY (G.L.), SAIKKU (P.), STAMM (W.E.), TAYLOR -ROBINSON (D.), WANG (S.P.) and WYRICK (P.B.): Radical changes to chlamydial taxonomy are not necessary just yet. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2001, 51, 249-249.
Original letter by Schachter in IJSEM Online
2 EVERETT (K.D.E.) and ANDERSEN (A.A.): Radical changes to chlamydial taxonomy are not necessary just yet -reply. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2001, 51, 251-253.
Original reply by Everett and Andersen in IJSEM Online
