Talk:Bacilli

Untitled

Bacilli is one of the characteristic o bacteria' That have cylindrical parts.168.171.254.128 17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Bacilli are not gram positive. Examples of gram negative bacilli include anaerobes such as Prevotella, Bacteroides and Fusobacterium.Mrcooker (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sentences of the Ambiguity section are kind of funky - perhaps they belong somewhere else? Friendlyliz (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Bacilli are rod shaped?

In the lede, it says "All Bacilli are rod-shaped bacteria", but in the Ambiguity section it says "Not all members of class Bacilli are rod-shaped (Staphylococcus is spherical)" ... is one of these wrong, or is there some clarification that needs to be made regarding what's meant by each? -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the above comment, the articles on both Streptococcus and Staphylococcus (as well as the infobox) say that Streptococcus and Staphylococcus are members of the class, Bacilli. This is a surprise, isn't it? Bwrs (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of genera under the class Bacilli are not rod-shaped (Marinococcus, Planococcus, Nosocomiicoccus, Saccharococcus... the list goes on...). Someone must have mistakenly noted here that all Bacilli (the class) are rod-shaped. All Bacilli (the genus) are rod-shaped. So you could see how one could get confused. In fact, I'm getting confused just typing it. I'll change it here and remove the tag, but if you vehemently disagree feel free to revert me and we'll chat about it here. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick added note, a brief description of the class Bacilli is in Bergey's Manual. Note that cell shape isn't mentioned in the description. Ajpolino (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name confusion and forsaken name

The naming here is obviously not ideal and the article says "Some microbiologists have forsaken the general "bacillus" term because of the confusion it can create" - is that true? What names would they use instead? I couldn't find anything. II | (t - c) 04:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that was just someone editorializing. There is not some alternative word folks would use to replace Bacilli (the class, and subject of this article), Bacillus (the genus), or bacillus (the cell shape). I'll try to reword it later this week as time allows (though anyone else feel free to jump in on it!). I think it would be ideal if this article had more info on the class Bacilli rather than being mostly taken up with discussing the ambiguous nature of the word "bacillus"... Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, but I hope you don't remove the substance of the helpful explanation, as it's rather hard to learn about these things when there's all these similar but different quite terms being thrown around. II | (t - c) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bacilli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127030659/http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/classifphyla.html to http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/classifphyla.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]