Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,065

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Endophyte: The Evolution of a Term, and Clarification of Its Use and Definition

Wilson, Dennis·1995·Oikos

Abstract

For many terms in biology, giving ironclad definition which is robust over biological time, is like trying to present single, immutable, measurement for the length of the femur bone of horse. You can say how long it is now, and how long is was at different stages in the evolutionary history of the animal, but you probably can not predict what it will be millennium from now. Definitions of many biological terms are the same, they evolve over time. Just as our knowledge evolves, so we change the meaning of terms to better describe what we need to say. This is very apparent when one compares terms in the scientific literature, or the unabridged Oxford dictionary of the English language, from several decades ago, to the meaning we give to the same terms today. So what about the term Endophyte? Wennstrdm (1994) argues that it is abused and misused term to the extent that its use is no longer meaningful. He further suggests that we should either use the term with its original definition, or redefine the term, but argues against the latter. Wennstrdm (1994) used Ainsworth (1971) as example of the original definition and incorrectly stated it as an organism that lives in another organism. Ainsworth (1971) actually defines endophyte as a plant living inside another organism. Endophyte owes its origin to De Barry (1866) who first coined the term. Since then it has become deeply embedded in the literature. Within the last decade, different authors have proposed range of similar, but more complex definitions (e.g., Carroll 1986, Petrini 1991, Wilson 1993). However, endophyte does not stand alone as term whose definition has changed over time, or as term whose definition biologists might not agree over. What about the definition of species? There are probably many definitions of this term. They have changed over time. Darwins concept of species is quite different to the biologists of today, and biologists might not all agree on the concept of species (Moore 1990). But does this make the term meaningless? I would argue that it does not. I will propose useful working definition of endophyte which is meaningful at our current level of understanding about the microorganisms to which we have applied the term. In addition, I will identify areas where the term has been erroneously used as synonym, and show why it is valuable term whose meaning has simply evolved to keep up with our increasing understanding of the biology.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3545919

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 1,065

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, D.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1995-06
Volume
73
Issue
2
Pages
274
ISSN
0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2312829458
Cited by
1,065
References
0
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Endophyte: The Evolution of a Term, and Clarification of Its Use and Definition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3545919
The paper
Wilson, D. (1995). Endophyte: The Evolution of a Term, and Clarification of Its Use and Definition. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545919

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.