Talk:Ralstonia solanacearum

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ralstonia solanacearum. 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:

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) 23:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic subcategory

@AzseicsoK: Your edit looks correct to me. What was wrong with it? Invasive Spices (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Invasive Spices: Well, I was starting to move the genus Ralstonia and all of the species within it t Burkholderiaceae. But I found out there's an article for a family Ralstoniaceae, which is supposed to contain this genus. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK: I see. Well that's an article not a category, and Category:Ralstoniaceae doesn't exist. So the most specific subcategory would be the one you changed it to. I don't know what/if there are rules about this but I imagine the most specific subcat is correct. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put it in the subcategory if it turns out it no longer belongs there. Ralstoniales is not wrong. If they've put it in some new Ralstoniacea family, then it would no longer belong in Burkholderiaceae. I put them in the lowest level category that I'm sure is actually correct. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK:Oh. The problem was I didn't notice that these are both families. I was reading Ralstoniaceae as Ralstonia or Ralstoniales for some reason. Now I see. Well, of all the Tax sources listed on the Tax bar, only two (http://www.nzor.org.nz/names/1d8363db-a895-4dd5-bff7-86d176c9cbb3 and https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/45009) give the family as Ralstoniaceae. All the others say Burkholderiaceae. NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=119060) says somehow B "includes" R which I would guess would be a wholesale renaming (don't know). Something from the Leibniz Institute (https://www.bacterio.net/genus/ralstonia#solanacearum) specifically gives 2001 as the date for R and 2006 as the date of reassignment to B. Anyway I'm not a taxonomist so I think you've found a problem a tax needs to deal with, rewriting Ralstoniaceae to say it's not valid (or is smaller) now. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]