Talk:Chemotype

Also in microbes
There aren't as many good articles on the term and how it's used with respect to bacteria, but there is one in International bulletin of bacteriological nomenclature and taxonomy volume 12 (1962). Google snippet view shows the following: "The term "chemovar (chemotype)" may be used to designate an infrasubspecific subdivision to include infra- ..." and I can take a look at this resource in the library this week. I'll keep looking elsewhere for clear explanations of the term in other disciplines. It also seems to have been used quite a bit in the 1930s - 1960s to describe a relationship between disease susceptibility in humans, just google "chemotype somatotype". Rkitko (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take back what I said about the non-notability of this topic. It seems to me that the biggest remaining problem is the lack of reliable citations. Do you have time to make a change, perhaps remove the unsoruced botany explaination with a sourced microbiology reference? --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added two reliable sources last night. I rely heavily on the (now sourced) Thymus botany example reference, though. It had a detailed description and criticism of the concept, something I haven't seen in any other paper. Most just use the term without comment on its meaning as if its well understood in the discipline. I need to dig deeper and add more refs so that one ref is not dominant. However, I think it's a decent start-class, referenced article at the moment. The above was more a note to myself to check up on that reference when I go to the library on Friday. Rkitko (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, what a difference 24 hours can make! ;-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it! And added the new source. I think we have a good balance of botany and microbiology now. It's curious that the term means the same thing in both disciplines but the 2009 botany paper made an effort to describe the genesis of the term, claiming that it was coined by Dr. Rolf Santesson in 1968 when it was clearly being used by the microbiologists a decade earlier. (Early uses can be found in the 50s in the same sense as adopted by the bacteriological code in 1962, still earlier than Santesson's usage applied to botany.) It's amusing that the botanists didn't make the connection, or perhaps they were restricting their discussion to its application in botany, although that wasn't clear. Ah well. I think I'm done for now but I'll keep a watch on the article. Rkitko (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to differentiate this use, from use of the term "chemotype" in drug discovery...
...where its meaning is completely different! See for instance < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058157/ >. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)