Talk:Virus classification

Hantaviruses

What about Hantaviruses? -- Emperorbma 21:17, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nevermind, they are up where they should be now... -- Emperorbma 21:57, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Orf, a parapox virus

This stub article is orphaned: orf - is there a home for it? Ancheta Wis 00:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Potexvirus and Pomovirus genera misplaced

Wilke reverted a ViralQuest removal of Potexvirus from the dsDNA viruses, Family Polyomaviridae section. I am reversing that edit (and removing Genus Pomovirus) because these two genera are postive-strand ssRNA virus groups (not dsDNA). Genus Potexvirus is a member of the Family Flexiviridae and the Genus Pomovirus is an unassigned (+)ssRNA virus member. See said listings already in previous Virus Classification edits. See also: ICTV Genus Potexvirus [1] ICTV Genus Pomovirus [2] ICTV Family Polyomaviridae [3] and ICTV Taxonomy Browser (Viruses) [4] Thanks for allowing this edit. --ViralQuest 23:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Virus taxonomy

Virus
Scientific classification
Domain:	Aphanobionta
(unranked):	Acytota
Kingdom:	Virus
(unranked):	Viruses
Orders
see Virus classification

• Shouldn't Viruses appear at the WikiSpecies wiki?

  http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/..%5CDetails%5C71304.htm

  http://www.laureestan.unige.it/progr/botanica.html

  http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/..%5CDetails%5C71303.htm

  http://wiki.tatet.ru/pt/Biologia.html

  http://www.bioproject.info/particular_biology/superkingdom_viruses.html

  pt:Acytota

132.205.15.43 04:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, although that's something for them to worry about. However, viruses are an odd case because they don't appear in the normal classification of living things. Kingdom Virus is rare, and Aphanobionta and Acyota are very obscure. More subtly, though, they shouldn't appear in the normal classification of living things because they don't form a phylogenetic hierarchy, and probably don't even have a single origin. So I'm not sure what we should do with them, but I'd say casually giving them a kingdom, domain, or empire isn't the solution. Josh

• Though we wouldn't casually be giving them a kingdom/domain/empire. People already do that. A rankless taxobox would work as well, as anything above order is controversial, and they are all viruses, and the taxoboxes are nice to have on the virus pages. 132.205.15.43 05:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few people do that, but it is not very common, and I have not seen it done alongside three domains. As for the taxoboxes, I've moved my suggestion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Josh

• WikiSpecies seems to have a start: WikiSpecies:Virus 132.205.15.43 04:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes courtesy of WikiProject:Tree of Life

Siphoviridae
Virus classification
Group:	Group I (dsDNA)
Order:	Caudovirales
Family:	Siphoviridae
Genera
Genus 1 Genus 2

WikiProject?

Is there a WikiProject for viruses? 132.205.15.43 04:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses has been tagged as inactive. 132.205.94.174 23:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Virus family numbers?

Do the numbers in the "Virus Family" column of the DNA Viruses and RNA Viruses tables mean anything, or are they just kind of there? (E.g. is Parvoviridae always DNA virus family number 3, by some authoritative source?) I'd suggest removing them if they're not meaningful, or explaining and citing a source if they are meaningful. -Agyle 03:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviation ICVCN

The abbreviation ICVCN (with piped link to this article) appears in the article Biology in the paragraph shown below, but does not appear here in this article.

The dominant classification system is called Linnaean taxonomy, which includes ranks and binomial nomenclature. How organisms are named is governed by international agreements such as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), and the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (ICNB). A fourth Draft BioCode was published in 1997 in an attempt to standardize naming in these three areas, but it has yet to be formally adopted. The Virus International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature (ICVCN) remains outside the BioCode.

Could this please be added in proper context so that people redirected here will find some material in context to satisfy them. AshLin 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure ICVCN refers to the ICTV's classification system, although I can't find a good, clearcut reliable statement relating the two. It seems like the code is informally referred to as "the ICTV code," "the ICTV database," and is formally cited as "The Seventh Report of the ICTV" or something, and that ICVCN is used rarely (perhaps more commonly around 1998-2000). Examples of dual usage this abstract, and this website. I'm hesitant to add info to either article clarifying this without an unambiguous citation. -Agyle 18:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Retroviridae in RNA virus table

It appears that the table under the RNA viruses heading is meant to list RNA viruses, but the Retroviridae are considered group VI in the Baltimore classification (whereas only groups III, IV, and V are listed as strictly RNA viruses here on this page). Should the Retroviridae be removed from the RNA virus table? Should the table include the Baltimore classifications?Scray (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant link to ICTV that shows the reverse-transcribing viruses clearly distinct from the RNA viruses[5]Scray (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really understand your question, but retroviruses eg HIV are RNA viruses. During replication they have a DNA intermediary, (pro-viral DNA), but they are RNA viruses nonetheless. GrahamColm^Talk 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked out Scray's edit when it was made. He appears to be correct - see See Also link at bottom of page. In Baltimore's classification retroviruses belong to Group VI, and therefore don't belong in a list of taxa in Groups III-V. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Positive/negative sense?

Could someone put a definition of what positive or negative sense RNA/DNA is?72.46.10.212 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to the sense article in the "Baltimore Classification" sectionPhantombantam (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA viruses - summary table

What is the basis for the 'virus family' classification in the table in this section?

There are seven 'families' which is confusing since they echo the seven groups under Baltimore. At least it's confusing to me as a non-taxonomist... For instance it sort of suggests the Hepadnaviridae/HBV ('family 6') are in Group VI. ICTV isn't very helpful (Hepadnaviridae are an unassigned family) but i've not come across this system before so i'd like to know more about it (although it seems coherent enough.) If it's just a listing of recognised families, would it be helpful to list their baltimore groups s well, to make it clear where they fit in the overall ICTV scheme? ditto the equivalent table under RNA viruses section.

Can anyone enlighten me / give a reference for this system? I don't have Virus Taxonomy to hand... Cheers... Comrade jo (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Table confusion

The tables in the "Baltimore Classification" system appear to be from a different taxonomy. I was very confused when I found the "Hepatitis B" entry in what appeared to be the "Group II" table.

I attempted to unscrew this mess by adding a column to each table giving the Baltimore group, but if the tables are in fact from some othre taxonomy, they should be removed fromt h eBaltimore section and added to a new "comparison of classificatins" section. -Arch dude (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"but"

What does the word "but" refer to in the class VI description? --rmhermen

Shouldn't be there. Fixed now, I think, will also fix in Virus (Biology). Someone else

Any rulebooks....and the identifier of the document...???

• http://www.ictvdb.rothamsted.ac.uk/ICTVWeb/rules.html

--222.67.205.32 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is an old document from 1996 based on the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) guidelines. Their current (2010) website is here [6]. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)