Talk:Gram-negative
|
|
Gram-staining characteristics are used for clinical as well as taxonomic purposes, and specific examples relating to specific pathogens should probably be retained. -- Someone else 23:22 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
Gram-staining is useful clinically primarily because it places limits on what group a bacterium belongs to, and is only one of several tools necessary to identify a pathogen. I don't think we should try and make this page into a full guide for identifying gram-negative bacteria, and while certainly some examples are helpful, the amount given on the page is overkill. Really, how critical is it to mention Bdellovibrio, as opposed to the hundreds of other gram-negative genera that could be listed here?
I get the strong impression that the list was primarily there as a way of linking to pages on specific bacteria, which otherwise would be orphans. Relatively unimportant bacteria that belong to larger groups, though, can be linked from those groups. Saying that proteobacteria are gram-negative and the acetic acid bacteria are proteobacteria tells me that acetic acid bacteria are gram-negative, and more. I don't see the reason for giving examples beyond better-known examples like Escherichia coli and Salmonella.
I agree that the page needn't enumerate all gram-negative bacteria. On the other hand, if there's an article on any particular one, why not list it? My point is that someone examining a specimen categorizes a given bacteria as gram-negative or gram-positive, without necessarily further explicitly classifying them (e.g. "It's gram-positive cocci in chains, must be strep" vs "It's gram-positive cocci in chains, probably a Firmacute". Some notable human gram-negative pathogens like shigella, H. influenzae, Yersinia, Klebsiella' and Vibrio vulnificus could be explicitly added: I guess I'm just suggesting that the clinical names that are used be present in addition to any higher taxonomic classifications. -- Someone else 00:31 May 2, 2003 (UTC)