CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Luteibacter rhizovicinus

species of bacterium

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 30, 2026
Entity authorityQ25861502 ↗
Source-derived summary

Luteibacter rhizovicinus is a Gram-negative, aerobic, chemoorganotrophic and motile bacterium from the genus of Luteibacter with a polar flagellum which has been isolated from rhizospheric soil of the plant Hordeum vulgare from Taastrop in Denmark.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Luteibacter rhizovicinus” as species of bacterium. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Luteibacter, rhizovicinus and species.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current 35-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Luteibacter, rhizovicinus and species providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Luteibacter rhizovicinus”, the useful work is to connect “species of bacterium” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 30, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q25861502. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Luteibacter rhizovicinus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Luteibacter rhizovicinus primary sources, Luteibacter rhizovicinus archive and Luteibacter research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Luteibacter rhizovicinus”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Luteibacter rhizovicinus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.