1887

Abstract

SUMMARY: Four methods of numerical analysis were tested to assess the taxonomic relationships of species of yeasts in 20 genera using characters obtained from standard descriptions. Relationships varied according to the analytical method employed. It is suggested that a reduction in the present number of genera may be necessary to justify the taxonomic rank of genus.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-89-1-175
1975-07-01
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/89/1/mic-89-1-175.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-89-1-175&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barnett J. A. 1966; A biochemical interpretation of some taxonomic differences between yeasts. Nature; London: 210565–568
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnett J. A., Pankhurst R. J. 1974 A New Key to the Yeasts Amsterdam and London: North Holland Publishing Co;
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Campbell I. 1971; Numerical taxonomy of various genera of yeasts. Journal of General Microbiology 67:223–231
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell I. 1972; Numerical analysis of the genera Saccharomyces and Kluyveromyces. Journal of General Microbiology 73:279–301
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell I. 1973; Numerical analysis of Hansenula, Pichia and related yeast genera. Journal of General Microbiology 77:427–441
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jones G. R., Stewart-Tull D. E. S. 1975; Antigenic analyses of yeast cell-walls. Sabouraudia 13:94–109
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kocková-KratochvíLová A., Sedlároá L., Vojtková-LEPšíková A., Šandula J. 1970 Taxometric Study of the Genus Saccharomyces (Meyen) Rees. Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hansen and related species. Part II Bratislava: Slovak Academy of Sciences;
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Middleton R. L. 1972 ERCC amendments to CLUSTAN 1A Edinburgh: Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre Program Library Unit;
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Sneath P. H. A. 1957; The application of computers to taxonomy. Journal of General Microbiology 17:201–226
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Sokal R. R. 1961; Distance as a measure of taxonomic similarity. Systematic Zoology 10:70–79
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Sokal R. R., Michener C. D. 1958; A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 38:1409–1438
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Sørensen T. 1948; A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter 5:1–34
    [Google Scholar]
  13. THE YEASTS, A TAXONOMIC STUDY 1970, 2nd edn.. Lodder J. Edited by Amsterdam & London: North Holland;
  14. Van Der Walt J. P. 1970a; Criteria and methods used in classification. In The Yeasts, a Taxonomic Study (1970). , 2nd edn.. pp. 34–113 Lodder J. Edited by Amsterdam andlondon: North Holland Publishing Co.;
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Van Der Walt J. P. 1970b; The genus Syringospora Quinquad emend. Mycopathologia et mycologia applicata 46:231–243
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ward J. H. 1963; Hierarchial grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58:236–244
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wishart D. 1969 CLUSTAN IA Edinburgh: Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre Program Library Unit;
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-89-1-175
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-89-1-175
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error