The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The species concept for prokaryotes
Open accessAbstract
The species concept is a recurrent controversial issue that preoccupies philosophers as well as biologists of all disciplines. Prokaryotic species concept has its own history and results from a series of empirical improvements parallel to the development of the techniques of analysis. Among the microbial taxonomists, there is general agreement that the species concept currently in use is useful, pragmatic and universally applicable within the prokaryotic world. However, this empirically designed concept is not encompassed by any of the, at least, 22 concepts described for eukaryotes. The species could be described as 'a monophyletic and genomically coherent cluster of individual organisms that show a high degree of overall similarity in many independent characteristics, and is diagnosable by a discriminative phenotypic property'. We suggest to refer it as a phylo-phenetic species concept. Here, we discuss the validity of the concept in use which we believe is more pragmatic in comparison with those concepts described for eukaryotes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prokaryotes: The unseen majority
Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., & Wiebe, W. J. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 · Cited by 4,871 · cited 5×
“For some, the concept is too conservative, leading to an underestimation of the real prokaryote diversity [2,13].”
BackgroundInfluentialAlm, R. A., Ling, L.-S. L., Moir, D. T., King, B. L., Brown, E. D., Doig, P. C., Smith, D. R., Noonan, B., Guild, B. C., deJonge, B. L., et al. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/16495 · Cited by 1,893
Woese, C. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6854 · Cited by 1,053
Cited by
Reduced diversity of faecal microbiota in Crohn’s disease revealed by a metagenomic approach
Manichanh, C., Rigottier-Gois, L., Bonnaud, E., Gloux, K., Pelletier, E., Frangeul, L., Nalin, R., Jarrin, C., Chardon, P., Marteau, P., et al. (2006) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2005.073817 · Cited by 2,277
Chun, J., Lee, J.-H., Jung, Y., Kim, M., Kim, S., Kim, B. K., & Lim, Y.-W. (2007) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64915-0 · Cited by 2,105
Microbial diversity and function in soil: from genes to ecosystems
Torsvik, V., & Øvreås, L. (2002) · Current Opinion in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s1369-5274(02)00324-7 · Cited by 1,922
Report of the ad hoc committee for the re-evaluation of the species definition in bacteriology.
Stackebrandt, E., Frederiksen, W., Garrity, G. M., Grimont, P. A. D., Kämpfer, P., Maiden, M. C. J., Nesme, X., Rosselló-Mora, R., Swings, J., Trüper, H. G., et al. (2002) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/00207713-52-3-1043 · Cited by 1,540
Prokaryotic Diversity--Magnitude, Dynamics, and Controlling Factors
Torsvik, V., Øvreås, L., & Thingstad, T. F. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1071698 · Cited by 1,196
Metadata
- Authors
- Rossello-Mora, R. A., & Amann, R.
- Venue
- FEMS Microbiology Reviews
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-67
- ISSN
- 0168-6445 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141047744
- Cited by
- 1,477
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The species concept for prokaryotes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00571.x
- The paper
- Rossello-Mora, R. A., & Amann, R. (2001). The species concept for prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00571.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
