Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014 295

Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes (cyanobacterial genera)

2014, using a polyphasic approach
Taxonomické hodnocení cyanoprokaryot (cyanobakteriální rody) v roce 2014 podle polyfázického přístupu

Jiří K o m á r e k1,2, Jan K a š t o v s k ý2, Jan M a r e š1,2 & Jeffrey R. J o h a n s e n2,3

1
Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Dukelská 135, CZ-37982
Třeboň, Czech Republic, e-mail: [email protected]; 2Department of Botany, Faculty
of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 31, CZ-370 05 České Budějovice,
Czech Republic; 3Department of Biology, John Carroll University, University Heights,
Cleveland, OH 44118, USA

Komárek J., Kaštovský J., Mareš J. & Johansen J. R. (2014): Taxonomic classification of
cyanoprokaryotes (cyanobacterial genera) 2014, using a polyphasic approach. – Preslia 86: 295–335.

The whole classification of cyanobacteria (species, genera, families, orders) has undergone exten-
sive restructuring and revision in recent years with the advent of phylogenetic analyses based on
molecular sequence data. Several recent revisionary and monographic works initiated a revision and
it is anticipated there will be further changes in the future. However, with the completion of the
monographic series on the Cyanobacteria in Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, and the recent
flurry of taxonomic papers describing new genera, it seems expedient that a summary of the modern
taxonomic system for cyanobacteria should be published. In this review, we present the status of all
currently used families of cyanobacteria, review the results of molecular taxonomic studies,
descriptions and characteristics of new orders and new families and the elevation of a few
subfamilies to family level. All recently defined cyanobacterial genera (some still invalid) are listed
in the family to which they are likely to belong and an indication is given of their taxonomic validity
and level of polyphasic characterization of each genus.

K e y w o r d s: concept of genera, cyanobacteria, molecular methods, taxonomic classification,

polyphasic approach

Introduction
Taxonomic classification is the primary method used to evaluate the diversity of all biolog-
ical groups of organisms. Criteria for classification have continually changed over the
years since Linnaeus conceived his scientific system. Taxonomy has been transformed
from a system that simply placed morphologically similar taxa into a hierarchical system
of classification that ideally reflects evolutionary relationships and creates a network of
hypotheses about evolutionary history. While in its initial stages systematic classification
was somewhat arbitrary and artificial, it can now be argued that it reflects phylogenetic
relationships. Consequently, when classification does not match phylogenetic evidence it
needs to be revised.
Cyanobacteria (cyanoprokaryotes) are an especially challenging group to classify.
They are arguably one of the most ancient groups of organisms on earth, with some fossil
representatives having morphology very similar to present-day species (Schopf 1974,
Knoll 2008). Their long and arguably complex evolutionary history (possibly achieved by
horizontal gene transfer, as indicated by their homoplasy) is difficult to discern simply
296 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

from morphology. A number of the morphological characters used to define higher taxa
(coccal vs trichal form, tapering, polarity, types of branching, dimensions, presence of
akinetes, etc.) have apparently arisen and/or been lost several times during the evolution of
modern species and genera (Gugger & Hoffmann 2004, Schirrmeister et al. 2011,
Komárek 2013, Shih et al. 2013).
There were published several systems of higher level classification of Cyanobacteria.
After the first classification systems (Gomont 1892, Bornet & Flahault 1886-1888),
Geitler (1925) first proposed Chroococcales, Entophysalidales, Pleurocapsales, Dermo-
carpales, Siphononematales, Nostocales and Stigonematales, but seven years later he
adopted the system proposed by Frémy (1929), which included only three orders:
Chroococcales, Chamaesiphonales, and Hormogonales (Geitler 1932). Ten years later he
recognized Chroococcales, Dermocarpales, Pleurocapsales and Hormogonales (Geitler
1942), a system still in use 24 years later with only a few modifications (Elenkin
1936–1949, Starmach 1966). Desikachary (1959) mainly reviewed the Stigonematales
and followed other authors in uniting the non-branching filamentous taxa into one order
(although he chose Nostocales). Prescott (1962) followed Frémy’s (1929) system, and
Bourrelly (1970) used, in principal, Desikachary’s system of higher classification. Rippka
et al. (1979) recommended five sections, which became the primary basis for the non-
nomenclatural classification in Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, which rec-
ognized five subsections instead of orders, I (= Chroococcales), II (= Pleurocapsales), III
(= Oscillatoriales), IV (= Nostocales) and V (= Stigonematales) (Castenholz 2001).
The taxonomic system of cyanobacteria was radically changed particularly with the
introduction of electron microscopy and of molecular and genetic methods for character-
ization of cyanobacterial taxa. Cyanobacteria were nearly continually being revised since
the work of Francis Drouet, with radically different proposals being made simultaneously
over the last fifty years. The first group of researchers, typified by Drouet, wanted to sim-
plify the systematic classification by substantial reducing the number of taxa (Drouet &
Daily 1956, Drouet 1968, 1973, 1978, 1981, Bourrelly 1970, Otsuka et al. 2001), while
a second group proposed splitting both species and genera (and indeed all higher level
taxa), in order to achieve monophyly in all taxonomic groups (Anagnostidis & Komárek
1985, Casamatta et al. 2005, Johansen & Casamatta 2005, Řeháková et al. 2007,
Siegesmund et al. 2008, Perkerson et al. 2011). A third group advocated caution and
recommended a moratorium on taxonomic revision until there was considerably more
molecular evidence (Hoffmann 2005). The extreme consequence of this approach is to
effectively discard the nomenclatural definition of orders, families, genera and species and
replace them with subsections, “families” and “form genera” that do not reflect evolution-
ary history but provide a temporary, artificial, nomenclaturally invalid, but convenient and
stable method of referring to cyanobacterial strains (Castenholz 2001).
While the authors of this paper recognize the merits and difficulties of these three
approaches, we advocate another system of taxonomic classification that reflects evolu-
tionary history and includes monophyletic taxa. We feel it is better to have narrowly-
defined, ostensibly monophyletic genera, each containing relatively few species than
large, poorly defined polyphyletic genera containing many unrelated species. This taxo-
nomic system is not yet available. However, considerable revisionary work has been
undertaken in recent years (Anagnostidis & Komárek 1985, 1988, 1990, Komárek &
Anagnostidis 1986, 1989, Büdel & Kauff 2012), and many new genera and species have
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 297

been described. Consequently, while we have not yet arrived at a complete and stable revi-
sion, the classical system and indeed approach of the most important cyanobacterial
researchers of the 20th century (Geitler 1925, 1932, 1942, Frémy 1929, Elenkin
1936–1949, Desikachary 1959) is so dated and incorrect that without adoption of a provi-
sional taxonomic system that more clearly reflects modern evidence no further progress
will be made. The new Süßwasserflora series on the cyanoprokaryotes (cyanobacteria) is
now finally complete (Komárek & Anagnostidis 1998, 2005, Komárek 2013). The use of
a more modern higher level systematics is recommended by Hoffmann et al. (2005a, b),
who divide the class Cyanophyceae into four subclasses: Gloeobacteriophycidae,
Synechococcophycidae, Oscillatoriophycidae and Nostochopycidae. This system reflects
the phylogeny and is radically different to past systems in that it recognizes that coccoid
lineages (formerly the Chroococcales) and filamentous lineages (formerly the Oscilla-
toriales) are mixed to some degree, with the Synechococcales and Pseudanabaenales rep-
resenting both coccoid and filamentous orders containing cells with parietal thylakoids
(and thus in Synechococcophycidae), and the Chroococcales and Oscillatoriales contain-
ing cells with more complicated thylakoid arrangements (and thus in the Oscillatorio-
phycidae) (cf. Komárek & Kaštovský 2003). This system has undergone some changes in
the intervening several years, and this publication reflects the newest thinking and newest
system. It is superior to older schemes of classification, because it more closely reflects
phylogeny, but it is likely there will be further revisions in the near future as more taxa are
sequenced and more genomes become available.
Since 2000, more than 50 genera of cyanobacteria have been described. At the 19th
IAC symposium in Cleveland (28 July – 2 August 2013), additional 16 putative new gen-
era were proposed along numerous species. We are in a time of fairly radical and rapid sys-
tematic and taxonomic development. The purpose of this review is threefold. First, we will
present a more phylogenetically-based system of higher level taxonomy and classification
of the cyanobacteria as currently exists in early 2014 (recognizing it will undoubtedly
change in the coming decade). Second, we will present all the genera that have some taxo-
nomic standing or are currently accepted and give an indication of their current standing.
Third, we will discuss the nature of the taxonomic challenges cyanobacterial taxonomists
face in creating a taxonomic system in which at least the genera and species will be
monophyletic.

Methods
Phylogenetic methods
The phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1) was generated using 31 conserved proteins previously
tested for (cyano)bacteria (Wu & Eisen 2008, Shih et al. 2013). First, BLAST queries were
made from sequences of these proteins mined from the complete genome of Synechocystis
PCC 6803 (BA000022). Each of the 31 queries was used in tblastn (cut-off value 1.e–10)
algorithm searches against a custom database compiled from all the complete
cyanobacterial genomes available and WGS contigs downloadable from NCBI (April
2014). Hits for each protein were aligned using MAFFT v. 7 (Katoh & Standley 2013)
FFT-NS-i algorithm and the alignments were manually reviewed to remove ambiguous
sites, gap regions and short sequences. All alignments were then concatenated into a 5689
298 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

amino-acid long matrix containing 146 OTUs. Only OTUs with complete or nearly com-
plete sequences for all 31 proteins were used in the phylogenetic analysis. A maximum-
likelihood tree was produced using RaxML v. 7 (Stamatakis 2006), a CIPRES super-
computing facility (Miller et al. 2012) and the Dayhoff+G likelihood model. One thou-
sand bootstrap pseudoreplications were calculated to evaluate the relative support of
branches.

Evaluation of the present status of cyanobacterial genera

The system of Cyanobacteria presented in this study is based on traditionally, validly
described and morphologically-defined genera, and provides continuity with the research
of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. It relies on botanical binomial nomenclature. Extant
taxonomic characters were accepted where possible, applying the polyphasic approach in
all cases where molecular and other data (electron microscopy, biochemical analysis) are
available. The modern system is in good agreement with botanical nomenclatural rules
(only with few exceptions). It is not because we prefer the botanical concept of
cyanobacteria to the bacteriological nature of this group, but because the nomenclatural
code for bacteria is not suitable for modern cyanobacterial classification and no
cyanobacterium has been satisfactory described according to CIP. The recognized and
accepted cyanobacterial genera in June 2014 are listed by orders and families (Appendix
1). We include some genera that are provisional when we know that manuscripts describ-
ing the taxa exist and will likely be published in 2014 or 2015. All presented taxa do not
share the same level of characterization and taxonomic clarity, and we divide their status
into several main categories:
Category 1 indicates cyanobacterial genera supported by molecular phylogeny, includ-
ing 16S rRNA gene sequence of the type species. Typically, members of this group were
described using a polyphasic approach, i.e. by defining monophyletic clusters of strains
together with one or more unique phenotypic characters (apomorphies) that can be used to
identify them using morphology and other characters (e.g. Acaryochloris, Brasilonema,
Chakia, Coleofasciculus, Mojavia, Oculatella, Phormidesmis, Spirirestis, etc.). Several
older genera, originally based solely on morphology, the type species of which was later
supported by molecular data, are included also in this category (e.g. Arthrospira,
Cyanothece, Cylindrospermum, Cylindrospermopsis, Gloeobacter, Limnococcus, Mastigo-
cladus, Microcoleus, Microcystis, Richelia, Starria). The definition of some of these gen-
era was narrowed due to taxonomic revision, usually splitting some of the species to create
new genera. Genera in this category can only be considered to be certain (sensu stricto)
when the source of molecular characterization is the type species (or holotype material).
Genera for which this is true are marked as category 1* in Appendix 1.
Some genera are relatively well studied using modern methods; however they lack
a molecular analysis of the type species (category 2). It is possible that the eventual
sequencing of the type species will reveal that the other species attributed to the genus are
not in the same clade. However, it is equally likely that when the type species is sequenced
some of the species assigned to the genus will be in the same clade as the type and assign-
ment to existing genera or new genera will be required to achieve monophyletic taxa.
Examples of genera currently in this category include Aulosira, Coelosphaerium,
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 299

Dermocarpella, Hyella, Myxosarcina, Petalonema, Schizothrix, Solentia, Symphyonema,

Symploca and Trichocoleus.
Category 3 consists of traditional morphogenera that require taxonomic revision. These
genera, based on sequence-based phylogeny, are either paraphyletic or polyphyletic. Even
though they are not monophyletic, complete revisions have not been undertaken because
either the type has not been sequenced (so we do not know what really belongs in the
genus sensu stricto), or very incomplete taxon sampling in these typically species-rich
genera, or molecular workers are hesitant to undertake the exacting, rule-bound taxonomic
work. In some instances the type species has been sequenced, but the genus remains
polyphyletic and unrevised; this is true, e.g. for Anabaena, Calothrix, Leptolyngbya,
Nodularia, Nostoc, Oscillatoria, Pseudanabaena, Synechococcus, Synechocystis and
Trichormus. There are also genera in this group for which we have limited sequence data
and the morphology is confused by the absence of clear discontinuities (e.g. Anabaena x
Wollea x Hydrocoryne; Gloeocapsa x Gloeocapsopsis x Asterocapsa; Spirulina x
Halospirulina). These genera need to be revised and clarified in the future using
polyphasic studies.
A large percentage of cyanobacterial genera, typically those described many years ago,
still await modern (molecular) characterization (category 4). Some of the genera in this
category are common, but have not been sequenced because they are difficult to cultivate
and there are no strains available (e.g. Asterocapsa, Coelomoron, Cyanosarcina,
Geitleria, Geitleribactron, Homoeothrix, Kyrtuthrix, Leibleinia, Lemmermanniella,
Porphyrosiphon , Rhabdogloea, Rhabdoderma, etc.). This group also includes validly
described but taxonomically doubtful taxa (e.g. Desmosiphon, Letestuinema, Lithomyxa,
Loefgrenia, Loriella, Placoma, Rhodostichus, Tubiella and others). Some of them are gen-
era with incomplete and/or unclear diagnoses that have not been found since their descrip-
tion or only exceptionally.
Several genera are taxonomically invalid and have no nomenclatural standing (cate-
gory 5). These are names that have appeared in recent scientific papers, usually with sup-
porting molecular data, but do not meet the nomenclatural requirements of either the Bac-
teriological Code or International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants
(Lapage et al. 1992, Mc Neill et al. 2012, respectively), e.g. Crocosphaera, Euhalothece,
Thermosynechococcus, Xeronema. This category includes also some described subgenera
that are considered by modern researchers as “genera”, but without a formal nomencla-
tural revision that would make them valid (e.g. Myochrotes – part of Scytonema,
Godlewskia – part of Chamaesiphon, Alyssophoron – part of Komvophoron).

Results
New system of classification of the Cyanobacteria (Appendix 1)
The primary morphological characteristics that are diagnostic of the families were first
given in Anagnostidis & Komárek (1988, 1990) and Komárek & Anagnostidis (1986,
1989), and updated in Komárek & Anagnostidis (1998, 2005) and Komárek (2013). A fur-
ther updated version is given here, reflecting the most recent changes in higher level clas-
sification (Figs 1, 2). Hoffmann et al. (2005a, b) recommend the recognition of four
subclasses (Gloeobacteriophycidae, Synechococcophycidae, Oscillatoriophycidae and
300 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Nostochophycidae). Of these, the first and last are monophyletic groups, but Synecho-
coccophycidae and Oscillatoriophycidae are not monophyletic in phylogenies based on
multigene sequence alignments (Fig. 1). Although their thylakoid structure and type of
cell division remain foundational as conservative ultrastructural characters valuable for
identifying deep evolutionary divisions, there is apparently more variability in these char-
acters than previously thought and the subclasses are likely to be further fragmented in the
future when greater taxon sampling gives a clearer picture of the order and subclass level
diversity. The new system we present below is as consistent as possible with our phylogen-
etic understanding of the many published phylogenies and the sample phylogeny we pres-
ent (Figs 2, 3).

1. Gloeobacterales
This order contains only one monophyletic family with one genus (Rippka et al. 1974,
Mareš et al. 2013b).

1.1 Gloeobacteraceae Komárek et Anagnostidis

The typical genus Gloeobacter was recently studied by Mareš et al. (2013b) and has a clear
independent taxonomical position at the base of all Cyanobacteria. It is the only genus of
cyanobacteria that lacks thylakoids (Fig. 2). The two species described form a monophyletic
group and the entire genome of both species has been sequenced (category 1*).

2. Synechococcales
A large group (over 70 genera) with both unicellular (plus colonial) and filamentous types
but there is no sequence data for most taxa. A 31-gene phylogeny (Fig. 1) indicates that the
group as currently defined is not monophyletic, but the families we define are at least not
contradicted by present phylogenetic studies. With greater taxon sampling in the future, it is
highly likely more orders will be recognized and there will be a family level revision of the
Synechococcales. This group is united by the presence of parietal thylakoids and is pres-
ently equivalent to a subclass Synechococcophycidae. Even though its genera have parietal
thylakoids, we have separated the Spirulinaceae into a new order separate from the Syne-
chococcales based upon definitive molecular evidence (Fig. 1, see also Shih et al. 2013).

2.1 Synechococcaceae Komárek et Anagnostidis

Many genera from this family (12 out of a total of 17) are in category 4 (no relevant molec-
ular data, see Appendix 1). Many of the genera in this group were described on the basis of
the form of their colonies and mucilaginous envelopes, which disappear quickly in cultiva-
tion. There are only two phylogenetically unrelated sequences available for Cyanodictyon.
The relationship of this genus with the morphologically similar genera Cyanobium and
Synechococcus is also questionable. The colonial genus Anathece has an unclear relationship
with solitary-living Cyanobium. The colonial habit is apparently tied to environmental
conditions and the genetic basis of colony formation needs further study (Hickel 1985,
Komárková-Legnerová & Cronberg 1985, Komárková-Legnerová 1991, Komárek et al.
2011, etc.). Neosynechococcus (Dvořák et al. 2014) is a newly described independent line-
age, morphologically similar to Synechococcus (see in Leptolyngbyaceae). Thermosynecho-
coccus is well defined from a molecular phylogenetic and ecological point of views, but
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 301

Fig. 1. – Phylogenetic tree of cyanobacteria based on 31 conserved protein sequences. All suitable complete and
draft data on genomes available in April 2014 were utilized. The tree was calculated using a maximum likelihood
algorithm with the bootstrap values given at the nodes. The cyanobacterial orders included in the current system
are highlighted on the tree.
302 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Fig. 2. – Schematic view of cyanobacterial orders and families, and the important taxonomic characters used to
distinguish them. The basic separation of higher taxa is based on preliminary results of phylogenetic analyses and
ultrastructural patterns of thylakoids.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 303

Fig. 3. – Schematic view of the families of heterocytous cyanobacteria (Nostocales) at the level of orders and fam-
ilies, and features important for their identification.
304 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

was unfortunately not validly published (Katoh et al. 2001). Synechococcus is a broad
genus that is poorly morphologically and ecologically defined and includes many inde-
pendent undescribed lineages (Waterbury et al. 1979, Willmotte 1994, Honda et al. 1999,
Palenik 2001, Robertson et al. 2001 and many others). This family is in great need of study
and revision at all taxonomic levels.

2.2 Merismopediaceae Elenkin

There are only a few sequences for Aphanocapsa and Eucapsis, which indicate a few
unclear relationships (in particular, marine and freshwater Aphanocapsa are apparently
different genera). There are no detailed polyphasic taxonomic publications. There are
probably several small-celled types described originally within the genus Chroococcus
belonging to the Eucapsis clade (Komárek & Hindák 1989, Komárková et al. 2010). The
several 16S rRNA sequences that exist for Merismopedia (Palinska et al. 1996) and
Synechocystis indicate they are polyphyletic, but the focus of the studies containing these
sequences is on other taxa and the Merismopediaceae are considered only marginally
(Rajaniemi-Wacklin et al. 2006, Korelusová et al. 2009). Limnococcus was assigned mor-
phologically and ecologically to a separate subgenus of Chroococcus (Komárek &
Anagnostidis 1998), but after a subsequent polyphasic study (Komárková et al. 2010) it
was elevated to genus status as it is unrelated to typical Chroococcus, belonging to another
family.

2.3 Prochloraceae R. A. Lewin

Only two marine genera are described (Lewin 1977, Chisholm et al. 1992), characterized
by the presence of chlorophyll b. Prochlorococcus (one of the most important primary
producers in the oceans of our planet) is well studied (Six et al. 2007), but the taxonomic
level of two ecologically distant groups (high- and low-light adapted clusters) and the rela-
tions to some marine Synechococcus (Rocap et al. 2003) is still unclear. Symbiotic
Prochloron is well studied in nature, but unresolved taxonomic problems include differences
between symbiotic and non-symbiotic Prochloron and their relationship to Synechocystis
trididemnii (Munchhoff et al. 2007). Finally, this family needs to be split into separate
families as Prochlorococcus and Prochloron are phylogenetically separated in distantly
related lineages in all phylogenies based on a sufficient sampling of taxa.

2.4 Coelosphaeriaceae Elenkin

In this family only a few strains of Woronichinia and Snowella have been studied using
molecular methods (Rajaniemi-Wacklin et al. 2006), in spite of the fact that many members
of this family are frequently abundant in stagnant waters throughout the world. This study
supported the continued recognition of these genera. There are no sequences for
Coelomoron, Coelosphaeriopsis and Siphonosphaera, but there are two undocumented
environmental sequences from New Zealand (EF638722 and EF638723) for
Coelosphaerium. However, all data presently available show this family to be monophyletic.

2.5 Acaryochloridaceae fam. nov.

This family is an isolated lineage with one genus, Acaryochloris, well supported by
Miyashita et al. (2003). According to the available data, there are probably more than one
species in this genus.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 305

2.6 Chamaesiphonaceae Borzě

No typical species of Chamaesiphon has yet been studied in detail, but sequencing of several
species of various Chamaesiphon-types indicates that the traditional genus is polyphyletic
(Turner 1997, Loza et al. 2013). The remaining genera lack polyphasic characterization.
The subgenus Godlewskia probably belongs to another clade (Chroococcales, Sticho-
siphonaceae).

2.7 Romeriaceae fam. nov.

This is a small and poorly known group (Komárek 2001). A few sequences of the 16S
rRNA gene are attributed to Romeria, but it is possible that none of these sequences are for
typical Romeria. The rest of this family lacks polyphasic characterization. Other genera
also possibly belong to this group, e.g. Wolskyella (Mareš et al. 2008).

2.8 Pseudanabaenaceae Anagnostidis et Komárek

A small family that contains the ecologically important genera Limnothrix and Pseuda-
nabaena, which are both polyphyletic (Guglielmi & Cohen-Bazire 1984a, b, Anagnostidis
& Komárek 1988, Komárek & Anagnostidis 2005, Turicchia et al. 2009, etc.). Strains
assigned to the genus Limnothrix are in two (or more) distinct clades and belong to differ-
ent genera (Suda et al. 2002, Gkelis et al. 2005, Zhu et al. 2012). Limnothrix, Pseuda-
nabaena and Arthronema gygaxiana are intermixed in most phylogenies (Casamatta et al.
2006, Acinas et al. 2009, Johansen et al. 2011), and all three genera as currently circum-
scribed are polyphyletic. The sequences in the GenBank of the type species of
Arthronema, A. africanum, are dissimilar (< 92%) to those of all named cyanobacteria, so
it is certainly a distinct genus, but of very uncertain familial placement. There do not exist
molecular data for Yonedaella. Komvophoron is apparently polyphyletic and the position
of the type species is still unknown (Komárek & Anagnostidis 2005, Hašler & Poulíčková
2010). The genera and species in this family are in need of polyphasic characterization and
study in order to sort the taxa into monophyletic supported clades.

2.9 Leptolyngbyaceae stat. nov.

This is a large, relatively well-characterized family. Haloleptolyngbya (Dadheech et al.
2012b), Halomicronema (Abed et al. 2002), Nodosilinea (Perkerson et al. 2011),
Oculatella (Zammit et al. 2012, Johansen et al. 2013), Phormidesmis (Komárek et al.
2009, Turicchia et al. 2009), Prochlorothrix (Urbach et al. 1992) and Neosynechococcus
(Dvořák et al. 2014) are monophyletic and the 16S rRNA gene of their holotypes has been
sequenced. Plectolyngbya (Taton et al. 2011) is phylogenetically close to Leptolyngbya,
whereas species of Planktolyngbya occur in two distant clades (Thomazeau et al. 2010).
The broad definition of the widespread genus Leptolyngbya results in it still remaining
polyphyletic (Casamatta et al. 2006, Johansen et al. 2011, Perkerson et al. 2011, Dadheech
et al. 2012b, Zammit et al. 2012, etc.) The situation of the genus Trichocoleus is compli-
cated due to the absence of sequence data for the type species as well as a sequence attrib-
uted to T. sociatus (Siegesmund et al. 2008, Mühlsteinová et al. 2014b). For this family we
lack molecular data only for Leibleinia, which is morphologically and probably also
genetically diverse (Komárek & Anagnostidis 1998).
306 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

2.10 Heteroleibleiniaceae stat. nov.

This small family is closely allied with the Leptolyngbyaceae, from which it is distin-
guished by the presence of a heteropolar attachment to the substrate; however, it grows
usually without attachment organelles in cultures. There is no molecular characterization
of Heteroleibleinia. Only one species of Tapinothrix has been sequenced (Bohunická et al.
2011), but its relationship to the type species has not been established. More evidence is
needed to establish the family as independent from Leptolyngbyaceae.

2.11 Schizotrichaceae Elenkin

Only two sequences for Schizothrix exist. The main problem within this wide genus is its
morphologically supported polyphyly, the calcified types (=subgenus Inactis) versus typi-
cal Schizothrix (Komárek & Anagnostidis 1998, Komárek et al. 2006). Sequences of the
type species are needed. Since the sheath likely disappears in culture, it is possible that
sequences exist for Schizothrix but have been attributed to other genera in the
Synechococcales. Dasygloea has not been characterized and is rarely reported.

3. Spirulinales ordo nov.

This order has a special phylogenetic position and is characterized by typical, regularly
screw-like coiled trichomes without sheaths and has a characteristic cytology and ecology.
Spirulina had an unstable position in molecular phylogenies for a long time. From a mor-
phological point of view, the problem of open and closed helices remains unsolved. With
whole genome sequencing now making phylogenetic placement easier, it appears that it is
in its own special family distant from the Synechococcophycidae to which it was long
thought to belong. We place it and its possible relatives into a new order. The commer-
cially important “Spirulina platensis” is very different according to all phylogenetic and
cytological criteria, does not belong in this order and must be classified in the genus
Arthrospira (Oscillatoriales, Microcoleaceae).

3.1 Spirulinaceae (Gomont) Hoffmann, Komárek et Kaštovský

Syn. Spirulinoideae Gomont 1892. Spirulina and Halospirulina are genera primarily
described using molecular data. If Halospirulina is retained as a separate genus, it will
make Spirulina polyphyletic and in need of revision (Nübel et al. 2000). There are no
molecular data for Glaucospira.

4. Chroococcales
This order has been considerably reduced in comparison to the old concept when it
included coccoid forms with more complicated cytology and lacking baeocyte production
(comp. Geitler 1932, Komárek & Anagnostidis 1998). It has been restricted to include
only those coccoids that have a more or less irregular thylakoid arrangement than simple
parietal thylakoids (i.e. excluding forms now in the Synechococcales). There are no mod-
ern data for numerous families in this order and their more thorough evaluation is needed.

4.1. Microcystaceae Elenkin

We only have morphological data for Cyanocomperia, Planctocyanocapsa and Sphaero-
cavum, and only limited unclear and raw molecular data for Radiocystis. The well-known
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 307

genus Microcystis is consistently monophyletic (Kato et al. 1991, Otsuka et al. 1999,
Komárek & Komárková 2002, Willame et al. 2006, van Gremberghe et al. 2011, and oth-
ers), but the species-level classification within the genus can be controversial (cf.
Komárek & Anagnostidis 1998, Otsuka et al. 2001).

4.2. Aphanothecaceae stat. nov.

The following genera appear to be monophyletic and there are sequence data for the type
species: Crocosphaera (Zehr et al. 2001, Webb et al. 2008), Euhalothece (Garcia-Pichel et
al. 1998), Halothece (Garcia-Pichel et al. 1998, Margheri et al. 2008) and Rippkaea
(Mareš et al. in prep.). Aphanothece appears to be monophyletic, but sequence data for the
type species must be confirmed (Komárek et al. 2011). Crocosphaera and Euhalothece
are widely used names, but are invalidly published according to both nomenclatural codes.
The genus Gloeothece after recent conservation in the modern sense (Mareš et al. 2013a)
and polyphasic study (Mareš & Hauer 2013) seems to be well defined, however there are
no DNA sequence data for the generitype. Only morphological data are available for the
genera Cyanoaggregatum, Cyanogastrum, Dzensia, Hormothece and Myxobactron.
Intriguingly, Halothece together with Rubidibacter (Garcia-Pichel et al. 1998, Choi et al.
2008, Margheri et al. 2008) (and very probably also the closely related Euhalothece)
belong in an isolated lineage basal to Chroococcales (Fig. 1). After more data are col-
lected, this clade will probably need to be described as a separate order.

4.3. Cyanobacteriaceae fam. nov.

This monotypic family includes only Cyanobacterium, and the sequence data available on
the NCBI indicate that not all strains designated as Cyanobacterium belong to the clade
containing the type species (C. stanieri PCC 6308; Rippka & Cohen-Bazire 1983).

4.4. Cyanothrichaceae Elenkin in Kiselev

This family has only one freshwater and brackish genus, Johannesbaptistia, which has
a very characteristic morphology. The family is named after its original generic name
(“Cyanothrix”), which was changed only at the generic level (according to priority). One
sequence is available, but it is for a marine organism and consequently its identity with the
type species J. pellucida is questionable. There are no sequences for any other species.

4.5. Stichosiphonaceae Hoffmann, Komárek et Kaštovský

No molecular data are available for Stichosiphon. It is likely that Chamaesiphon subg.
Godlewskia (comp. 2.6 Chamaesiphonaceae) belongs in this family, but revisionary work
has not been completed.

4.6. Chroococcaceae Nägeli

Electron microscopy and molecular sequence data are not available for most genera in this
family, including Asterocapsa, Cyanokybus, Cyanosarcina, Cyanostylon, Nephrococcus,
Pseudocapsa and Pseudoncobyrsa. There is one sequence for the genus Chondrocystis
and if properly identified it is closer to Stanieria (Dermocarpellaceae) than Chroococcus.
Chalicogloea (Roldán et al. 2013), Chroogloeocystis (Brown et al. 2005), Chroococcus
(Komárková et al. 2010, Kováčik et al. 2011) and Geminocystis (Korelusová et al. 2009)
are monophyletic and the type species has been characterized molecularly. There are a few
308 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

sequences for Gloeocapsa and Gloeocapsopsis (Ramos et al. 2010), but they do not form
probably monophyletic clusters.

4.7. Gomphosphaeriaceae Elenkin

Incl. Beckiaceae Elenkin. This family contains only two genera (Beckia and Gompho-
sphaeria), both without molecular data.

4.8. Entophysalidaceae Geitler

This is important family with eight genera. Sequence data for only one atypical represen-
tative of Chlorogloea are available. Several genera have only been studied morphologi-
cally (e.g. Chlorogloea; Komárek & Montejano 1994).

5. Pleurocapsales
Currently this group appears to be monophyletic based on the available sequences. The
problem is that a large number of genera in this order lack sequence data. Members of this
order are very difficult to transfer in pure cultures.

5.1. Hydrococcaceae Kützing

All six genera in this family have not been investigated using either electron microscopy or
molecular sequence data.

5.2. Dermocarpellaceae Ginsburg-Ardré ex Christensen

Stanieria has been well studied with respect to molecular sequence data, including
sequencing of the type species. However, not all strains designated as Stanieria belong to
a single clade (Ishida et al. 2001). A few sequences, excluding the type species, exist for
Dermocarpella (Fewer et al. 2002), and one for Cyanocystis. There is no modern taxo-
nomic study of the whole family.

5.3. Xenococcaceae Ercegović

We have no molecular data for Xenotholos. There are molecular data for Xenococcus (Seo
& Yokota 2003, Shih et al. 2013), but not for the type species. This genus is polyphyletic
based on existing data. In the future this family is likely to be combined with Dermo-
carpellaceae.

5.4. Pleurocapsaceae Geitler

Syn. Hyellaceae Elenkin. All available data indicate that this family is a well-supported
monophyletic group. There is only a little modern information on this important and
genera-rich family. There are no molecular data for many genera (Chamaecalyx,
Chroococcidium, Cyanoderma, Cyanosaccus, Ercegovicia, Pascherinema, Podocapsa
and Radaisia). The best studied genus in this family, Pleurocapsa, is polyphyletic and this
morphological type probably includes more than two genera (Ishida et al. 2001, Loza et al.
2013). For the remaining genera (Chroococcopsis, Hyella, Myxosarcina and Solentia) we
only have a few sequences, but the polyphyly recorded indicates the need for revision of
the reference strains (Fewer et al. 2002, Foster et al. 2009, Brito et al. 2012).
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 309

6. Oscillatoriales
This order does not now include the filamentous taxa with relatively narrow trichomes and
parietal thylakoids (Synechococcales, Spirulinales), but includes those filamentous taxa
with more complicated cytology (with radial, fasciculated, or irregular thylakoid arrange-
ment), including also the coccoid, phylogenetically close genus Cyanothece. This genus
forms a certain grade between the Chroococcales and other orders with a similar thylakoid
arrangement and will consequently eventually require revision if monophyletic higher
level taxa are to be achieved.

6.1 Cyanothecaceae fam. nov.

This monotypic family is phylogenetically related to filamentous cyanobacteria of the
family Gomontiellaceae (Bohunická et al. in prep.). The type species, Cyanothece
aeruginosa, has been well characterized using a polyphasic approach (Komárek et al.
2004). Other variable strains previously designated as “Cyanothece sp.” fall into several
distinctly separate lineages. Revision of some of the phylogenetically separated Cyano-
thece strains has revealed them to be members of Gloeothece, Euhalothece and a newly
established genus Rippkaea (Mareš et al., in prep.).

6.2. Borziaceae Borzě

This monotypic family is based only on morphological data as molecular data are not
available.

6.3 Coleofasciculaceae fam. nov.

Over the last few years this group has been well studied, with the largest part of the family
consisting of newly described and well supported genera (e.g. Coleofasciculus
Siegesmund et al. 2008, Wilmottia Strunecký et al. 2011, Kastovskya Mühlsteinová et al.
2014a, Anagnostidinema Strunecký et al., in prep.). Taxonomical revision of Geitlerinema
is needed as several works have shown it is polyphyletic (Willame et al. 2006, Perkerson et
al. 2010, Hašler et al. 2012, 2014b).

6.4 Microcoleaceae stat. nov.

One of the largest families in the order Oscillatoriales is a relatively well studied group
with many genera described and based on molecular characterization and modern criteria
(status 1*): Annamia (Nguyen et al. 2013), Desertifilum (Dadheech et al. 2012a),
Johanseninema (Hašler et al. 2014a, 2014b, Kamptonema (Strunecký et al. 2014),
Oxynema (Chatchawan et al. 2012), Planktothricoides (Suda et al. 2002) and Roseofilum
(Casamatta et al. 2012). Several older genera are well documented as monophyletic, e.g.
Arthrospira (Manen & Falquet 2002, Dadheech et al. 2010), Microcoleus (Strunecký et al.
2013) and Planktothrix (Suda et al. 2002, Lin et al. 2010). There are no molecular data
available for Lyngbyopsis, Porphyrosiphon , Proterendothrix Pseudoscytonema, Sirocoleum
and Symplocastrum. The genera Oxynema and Kamptonema were derived from the tradi-
tional and polyphyletic genus Phormidium, where they were classified as special “groups”
in this genus by Komárek & Anagnostidis (2005). Relations of one part of the traditional
genus Phormidium (group VII – Ph. autumnale) to Microcoleus has been clearly estab-
lished several times (Garcia-Pichel et al. 1996, 2013, Boyer et al. 2002, Marquardt &
310 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Palinska 2007, Palinska & Marquardt 2008, Hašler et al. 2012, Strunecký et al. 2013).
Most species in Pseudophormidium belong in this family, but the several sequenced repre-
sentatives will consequently require assignment to the Pseudanabaenaceae or
Leptolyngbyaceae. There are no sequences of the type species of Symploca (which is ter-
restrial) and available data for marine species of Symploca indicate they are polyphyletic
(Thacker & Paul 2004). The type species of the genus Hydrocoleum is a freshwater spe-
cies and we have no available data for any freshwater members. Marine species of
Hydrocoleum and Trichodesmium are very similar and maybe congeneric (Abed et al.
2006). The marine species of Trichodesmium are assigned to two clades and may represent
two genera. T. erythraeum (type of the genus) is distinct from the compact clade contain-
ing T. thiebautii, T. hildenbrandtii, T. tenue and a cyanobacterium designated as Kata-
gnymene spiralis (Orcutt et al. 2002). The freshwater Trichodesmium-species are molecu-
larly evidently different from marine types. Tychonema also needs revision; sequences for
the species Tychonema tenue place it in a clade separate from the rest of the genus, which
forms a robust clade. The invalidly described genus Pseudoscillatoria Rasoulouniriana
2013 is evidently synonymous and ecologically identical with the correctly defined
Roseofilum Casamatta et al. 2012.

6.5. Homoeotrichaceae Elenkin

There is no molecular data available for any member of this family.

6.6. Oscillatoriaceae (S. F. Gray) Harvey ex Kirchner

All available data indicate this group is a separate evolutionary clade. There exist several
newly described genera for which we have polyphasic data of the type species:
Aerosakkonema (Thu et al. 2012), Limnoraphis (Komárek et al. 2013b), Moorea (Engene
et al. 2012) and Okeania (Engene et al.2013a, b). In contrast, we have no data for
Polychlamydum . Polyphyly has been detected in several genera (Lyngbya, Oscillatoria,
Phormidium). In response, several taxonomic changes were made but several questions
still persist (Turicchia et al. 2009, Strunecký et al. 2011, 2013, Chatchawan et al. 2012,
Engene et al. 2013b, Komárek et al. 2013b). Perhaps the most problematic and compli-
cated case is the widespread genus Phormidium, in which the type species Ph. lucidum
(and the whole “group VIII” sensu Komárek & Anagnostidis 2005) corresponds to the
family Oscillatoriaceae. The typical members of this group were studied by Moro et al.
(2010) and Sciuto et al. (2012). However, a large part of current Phormidium-species
(including the most frequent species Ph. autumnale) belongs to the Microcoleaceae
(Strunecký et al. 2013). Almost all existing sequences designated as Plectonema belong to
the species P. boryanum and P. terebrans, which are now classified both in Leptolyngbya
(Komárek & Anagnostidis 2005). The type species for this family and the genus
Oscillatoria, Oscillatoria princeps, has not been sequenced. The few other Oscillatoria
that have been sequenced are unclear marine taxa. Most members of this genus lack
molecular data. There are several sequences for Blennothrix, most of which are marine as
is the type species (but molecular data for the type species are missing) and are designated
under the incorrect name Hydrocoleum (H. brebissonii, H. cantharidosmum, H. gluti-
nosum, H. majus). The thermal freshwater Blennothrix (EU586734-5) is very close to
Plectonema wollei, both morphologically and molecularly.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 311

6.7. Gomontiellaceae Elenkin

Incl. Crinaliaceae Elenkin. The molecular and ecological dataset for this family is not
rich, but all data indicate this small and morphologically characteristic family is
monophyletic (Bohunická et al. in prep.). This group has special morphology and cytol-
ogy and has been confirmed several times (Claus 1959, Schuurmans et al. 2014). Cur-
rently, we have no molecular data for Gomontiella. There are sequences for the type spe-
cies of Starria and a few species of Crinalium, but not the type of Crinalium (cf., e.g.
Broady & Kibblewhite 1991).There are sequences for two freshwater strains of
Hormoscilla. Katagnymene may be problematic; we have no molecular data for the type
species, marine K. pelagica, but another marine taxon, K. spiralis, is very close (almost
identical) to Trichodesmium (Orcutt et al. 2002, Lundgren et al. 2005). The freshwater
Katagnymene accurata resembles this group morphologically, but detailed data are miss-
ing. Part of the genus Komvophoron probably belongs also to the family Gomontiellaceae
(cf. Hašler & Poulíčková 2010).

7. Chroococcidiopsidales ordo nov.

This group of organisms (one genus) which mostly live in extreme habitats was previously
associated with the Pleurocapsales, but phylogenies based on genomic (Fig. 1) and 16S
rRNA data of the type species C. thermalis indicate that it should be separated from that
order. This order clusters surprisingly in the vicinity of the heterocytous cyanobacteria
(Nostocales; Fewer et al. 2002).

7.1. Chroococcidiopsidaceae fam. nov.

Sequences are available for several strains attributed to Chroococcidiopsis, which lie out-
side of the clade with the type C. thermalis (more genera?). The whole genome of strain
PCC 7203 was sequenced. The extremophiles (cold and hot desert types; e.g. Friedmann
1980, de los Ríos et al. 2010, Bahl et al. 2011, and others) appear to belong to
Chroococcidiopsis sensu stricto.

8. Nostocales
This order represents a large and monophyletic cluster of filamentous cyanobacteria with
diversified thallus and special prominent cells (heterocytes, akinetes). This order contains
unbranched and isopolar, and falsely or true branched types, the filaments of few families
have heteropolar structure.

8.1. Scytonemataceae Rabenhorst ex Bornet et Flahault

This species-rich group of isopolar, false-branching heterocytous cyanobacteria is currently
being revised in a polyphasic study and taxonomic changes can be expected. Preliminary
results (Fiore et al. 2007, Aguiar et al. 2008, Sant’Anna et al. 2010, Vaccarino & Johansen
2011, 2012, Becerra-Absalón et al. 2013, Komárek et al. 2013a, Komárková et al. 2013)
show that at least the genera Scytonema and Brasilonema (and Scytonema sect. Myochrotes)
form a monophyletic clade, probably also accompanied by Chakia and Petalonema, based
on a 16S rRNA data analysis. However, numerous isolates morphologically convergent with
Scytonema (and also Petalonema) fall into several separate lineages yet to be characterized
in detail. On the other hand, part of the true-branching types (Y-type branching) from cave
312 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

habitats such as Iphinoe and one strain of Symphyonemopsis also seem to be closely
related to Brasilonema (Bohunická et al. 2013), however the phylogeny is poorly sup-
ported. Scytonematopsis is highly polyphyletic (Kováčik & Komárek 1988, Komárek
2013), however the generitype has not yet been sequenced so it has not been possible so far
to revise this genus. There are neither culture isolates nor sequences for Ophiothrix and
Kyrtuthrix. The relationship of this family with the following family Symphyonemataceae
is uncertain and needs clarification (cf. Gugger & Hoffmann 2004).

8.2. Symphyonemataceae Hoffmann, Komárek et Kaštovský

This family contains isopolar, true-branching taxa. As inferred from 16S rRNA data for
Mastigocladopsis and Symphyonema, these two genera probably form a monophyletic
cluster. The position of Iphinoe and Symphyonemopsis is presently unclear as discussed
above (8.1.; Lamprinou et al. 2011). The other genera have not been sequenced and are
included because they have similar morphology.

8.3. Rivulariaceae Kützing ex Bornet et Flahault

The three most important and widely occurring genera of these unbranched or falsely
branched heteropolar types with tapering filaments, Calothrix, Dichothrix and Rivularia,
form a relatively well characterized monophyletic lineage, but there are no phylogenetic
data on the type species (Golubić & Campbell 1981, Obenlünenschloss 1991, Sihvonen et
al. 2007, Berrendero et al. 2008, 2011, Dominguez-Escobar et al. 2011, Komárek et al.
2012, Whitton & Mateo 2012). In addition, the marine generitype of Microchaete possibly
falls into this group (Hauer et al. 2013). Other strains designated as Calothrix without
hairs or species of Microchaete (freshwater) belong to distant evolutionary lineages
(Hauer et al. 2013). Sequence data for the remaining genera are unclear or lacking. The
genus Gloeotrichia and Calothrix with akinetes belong in the vicinity of Nostocaceae.

8.4. Tolypothrichaceae Hauer, Mareš, Bohunická, Johansen et Berrendero-Gomez

This family is a well-characterized monophyletic lineage of non-attenuated, false-branch-
ing heteropolar types with molecular data for the genera Coleodesmium, Hassallia,
Tolypothrix, Rexia, Spirirestis and Dactylothamnos (cf. Flechtner et al. 2002, Fiore et al.
2013, Hauer et al. 2014). Seguenzaea and Streptostemon are morphologically similar but
their phylogeny is poorly known. Streptostemon is more related to Scytonemataceae
(recent sequences). The internal structure of the family is currently the subject of
polyphasic revisions.

8.5. Godleyaceae Hauer, Mareš, Bohunická, Johansen et Berrendero-Gomez

This family has only two members, the recently described Godleya (Novis & Visnovsky
2011) and Toxopsis (Lamprinou et al. 2012), both pseudo-branching filamentous types
with characteristic morphology. They form a monophyletic lineage probably remotely
related to the Tolypothrichaceae.

8.6. Chlorogloeopsidaceae (Mitra) Mitra et Pandey

A monotypic family forming a monophyletic sister clade to the Hapalosiphonaceae as
defined by Gugger & Hofmann 2004 and Dagan et al. 2013, with the type species
sequenced under the incorrect name “Chlorogloea”. Morphological variability and life
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 313

cycle of the type (reference) strain has been described several times (Mitra & Pandey
1967, Rippka et al. 1979, Hindák 2008).

8.7. Hapalosiphonaceae Elenkin

In Komárek (2013), several families are recognized based on the morphology of heterocytous,
true-branching, mostly monoseriate genera of the Nostocales, including the Hapalosipho-
naceae, Fischerellaceae, Loriellaceae, Mastigocladaceae and Nostochopsidaceae. Phylo-
genetic analysis has shown that the genera in these families are closely related and easily
confused morphologically. Fischerella, Westiellopsis, Nostochopsis, Hapalosiphon, Masti-
gocladus and Mastigocoleus form a monophyletic lineage corresponding to one family
(Gugger & Hoffmann 2004, Komárek & Mareš 2012, Dagan et al. 2013). The group is in
urgent need of a polyphasic revision (cf., e.g. Jeeji-Bai 1972, Kaštovský & Johansen
2008). We have united these taxa under the Hapalosiphonaceae in this paper. Numerous
genera with similar morphology have never been isolated or sequenced, and consequently
their standing is unclear. Several groups within this family differ distinctly morphologically.

8.8. Capsosiraceae (Geitler) Elenkin

Heterocytous cyanobacteria forming heteropolar colonies composed of loosely attached
cells or pseudofilaments held together by a common mucilaginous sheath. None of the
members have been sequenced, except the atypical species Capsosira lowei (Casamatta et
al. 2006), in which a subsequent analysis has indicated that it is likely to belong to the
Nostocaceae.

8.9. Stigonemataceae Borzě

This family includes the typical complexly true-branched types. Stigonema clusters sepa-
rately from the rest of the true-branching heterocytous cyanobacteria (Gugger &
Hoffmann 2004). Neither the generitype of Stigonema nor many other members of this
family have been isolated or analyzed using molecular methods, because keeping the
Stigonema species in cultivation is extremely difficult. However, the genus Stigonema is
very polymorphic and consists of several morphotypes (isopolar vs heteropolar, with
monoseriate vs polyseriate trichomes, with special type of hormogonia formation, etc.; cf.
Sant’Anna et al. 2013, etc.).

8.10. Gloeotrichiaceae fam. nov.

This family contains heteropolar tapering types with akinetes, forming spherical colonies.
Up to now, only the peculiar aerotope-bearing planktic species G. echinulata has been
sequenced and it has been found close to the Nostocaceae (Komárek & Mareš 2012).
Interestingly, like Nostocaceae members, Gloeotrichia forms akinetes in its filaments
(suprabasal). An investigation of the relationship among G. echinulata, the periphytic
Gloeotrichia (two morphotypes) and akinete-forming members of the genus Calothrix
will be of great interest. The Gloeotrichia-species with akinetes in rows (“Heliotrichia”)
are probably a special taxon.

8.11. Aphanizomenonaceae Elenkin

An intensively studied group of predominantly planktic, isopolar and unbranched
heterocytous types, usually with aerotopes in cells and hormogonia. The genera in this
314 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

group are extremely important, especially in the plankton in reservoirs, both in terms of
biomass and toxic bloom-formers. Recent taxonomic revisions of this group has yielded
the new well-characterized genera Aphanizomenon, Umezakia, Dolichospermum, Cuspido-
thrix, Sphaerospermopsis, Chrysosporum and possibly also Cyanocohniella (Barker et al.
1999, 2000, Li et al. 2000a, 2003, Komárek & Komárková 2003, Rajaniemi et al. 2005a,b,
Komárek & Zapomělová 2007, 2008, Stüken et al. 2009, Wacklin et al. 2009, Zapomělová
et al. 2009, 2010, 2012, Niiyama et al. 2011, Kaštovský et al. 2014). Nodularia,
Raphidiopsis, Cylindrospermopsis, Anabaenopsis and Cyanospira also seem to be mono-
phyletic genera (Florenzano et al. 1985, Komárek et al. 1993, Iteman et al. 2000, 2002, Li
et al. 2000a,b, 2003, 2008, Komárek & Komárková 2003, Gugger et al. 2005, Řeháková et
al. 2014), but mostly lack confirmed sequences for the generitypes. In addition, the
Raphidiopsis/ Cylindrospermopsis clade and Nodularia/Anabaenopsis/Cyanospira clade
show conserved 16S rRNA gene sequences, which indicate the separate status of the gen-
era within these clades (but cf. Moustaka-Gouni et al. 2009, 2010).

8.12. Nostocaceae C. A. Agardh ex Kirchner

This large and important family consists of unbranched heterocytous cyanobacteria with
isopolar or heteropolar filaments, producing akinetes, often in series (apoheterocytic). The
most important, mostly terrestrial colony-forming genus Nostoc has been intensively stud-
ied and recent taxonomic revisions have led to the identification of the core Nostoc clade
and separation of two new genera, Mojavia (Řeháková et al. 2007) and Desmonostoc
(Hrouzek et al. 2013). However, Nostoc is polyphyletic (Rajaniemi et al. 2005a, b) and
more new taxa are expected in the near future. Other frequently occurring genera, such as
Anabaena, Trichormus and Wollea, are also arguably polyphyletic (Rajaniemi et al.
2005a, Kozhevnikov & Kozhevnikova 2011, Zapomělová et al. 2013) and require revision
and splitting. Several strains of Aulosira, Hydrocoryne and Cylindrospermum have been
sequenced (Lukešová et al. 2009, Genuário et al. 2013, Johansen et al. 2014), but there is
no molecular data for the type species. Cronbergia, Hydrocoryne, Macrospermum and
Richelia are still little investigated and only partly sequenced (Janson et al. 1999, Komárek
2008, Komárek et al. 2010, Genuário et al. 2013). Cylindrospermum has been studied
using isolates and sequence data for all five of the foundational species, identified by
Bornet and Flahault, which indicates that at least these five species form a monophyletic
group, but related to Cronbergia (Johansen et al. 2014).This genus has, however, numer-
ous very different biological characters (development of heterocytes and akinetes).
Hydrocoryne and Richelia are little explored, although their generitypes have been
sequenced. Several isolates of various heteropolar types, provisionally designated as
Camptylonemopsis, Fortiea, Calothrix or Tolypothrix fall probably into this group, but
their identification is unclear and they need revision (special families). It has been already
started and resulted in the description of a nostocacean heteropolar genus Calochaete
(Hauer et al. 2013). Isocystis and Macrospermum have not yet been isolated or sequenced.
The generic name Fremyella DeToni 1936 is an alternative name for Microchaete, which
was later accepted as nomen conservandum; the name “Fremyella” is therefore superflu-
ous, but it is sometimes used for Microchaete species with trichomes with slightly nar-
rowed ends.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 315

Taxonomic descriptions and status changes

Numerous higher level taxa required description or status change prior to inclusion in the
system proposed in this manuscript. Below are the necessary nomenclatural changes, with
family names in the order they appear in the text.

Chroococcidiopsidales ordo nov.

Cells solitary or in more or less spherical or irregular groups, with thin, firm, colourless
sheaths, without pseudofilamentous stages, with thylakoids distributed irregularly through-
out the cytoplasm. Type family: Chroococcidiopsidaceae Geitler ex Büdel, Donner et
Kauff in Frey, 2012, p. 28–29.

Spirulinales ordo nov.

Filamentous cyanobacteria with trichomes regularly spirally coiled, with parietal
thylakoids, lacking heterocytes. Type family: Spirulinaceae (Gomont) Komárek,
Kaštovský, Mareš et Johansen, this paper.

Acaryochloridaceae fam. nov.

Cells solitary, coccoid, containing chlorophyll d. Type genus: Acaryochloris Miyashita et
Chihara, 2003, p. 1249.

Aphanothecaceae stat. nov.

Basionym: Aphanothecoideae Komárek et Anagnostidis 1986, p. 213.

Coleofasciculaceae fam. nov.

Filamentous cyanobacteria with radial or fasciculated thylakoid arrangement, constric-
tions at the cross-walls, with cell division completed before the next cell division begins.
Type genus: Coleofasciculus Siegesmund, Johansen et Friedl 2008, p. 1575.

Cyanobacteriaceae fam. nov.

Cells single or in pairs, with cell division only in one plane, without mucilaginous enve-
lopes, with thylakoids situated in the cell lengthwise, giving appearance of lengthwise
striation in the cytoplasm under a light microscope. Type genus: Cyanobacterium Rippka
et Cohen-Bazire, 1983, p. 32.

Cyanothecaceae fam. nov.

Cells solitary or in pairs, without gelatinous envelopes, with cell division only in one
plane, with reticulate keritomization and irregular to radial arrangement of thylakoids.
Type genus: Cyanothece Komárek 1976, p. 146.

Gloeotrichiaceae fam. nov.

Thallus is spherical, hemispherical, or irregularly shaped, slimy, sometimes hollow, often
becoming macroscopic, containing heteropolar trichomes with basal heterocytes and sub-
terminal akinetes. Type genus: Gloeotrichia J. Agardh ex Bornet et Flahault 1886, p. 365.
316 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Heteroleibleiniaceae stat. nov.

Basionym: Heteroleibleinioideae Komárek et Anagnostidis 2005, p. 243.

Leptolyngbyaceae stat. nov.

Basionym: Leptolyngbyoideae Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988, p. 439.

Microcoleaceae stat. nov.

Basionym: Microcoleae Hansgirg 1889, p. 56.

Romeriaceae fam. nov.

Cyanobacteria with rod-like cells arranged as short trichomes or dissociated cells in muci-
laginous pseudofilaments, with parietal thylakoids. Type genus: Romeria Koczwara in
Geitler, 1932, p. 915.

Discussion
In modern cyanobacterial taxonomy genera should be monophyletic clusters, which con-
sist of one to many species. For this reason, alpha level taxonomy in which species are well
characterized using a polyphasic approach (which includes molecular data), is critical in
order to construct monophyletic genera. Characterizing the genotypes of all genera as well
as the numerous morphologically recognized species in these genera is a challenge waiting
the current and next generation of cyanobacterial taxonomists.
The concept of more or less regular cyanobacterial genera according to modern criteria
should contain (i) a unique supported phylogenetic position, with a clear discontinuity
(about 95% or below similarity) to the nearest sister clade of species in another genus
based on 16S rRNA gene sequences, (ii) distinct morphological separation from the near-
est other generic entities, with a clear hiatus in any important cytomorphological
(autapomorphic) character or with a distinct and unique biological specificity (type of
division, type of heterocyte or akinete formation, etc.), and (iii) related ecological niches
(marine vs freshwater, planktic vs aerophytic or soil types, extreme thermal or specific
mineral springs, deserts, etc.). It is necessary to take into consideration that for
cyanobacteria the same markers and features can have different taxonomic significance in
different phylogenetic clades and morphotypes. The regular genus in cyanobacteria repre-
sents therefore a unique type, based on a combination of definable molecular, morpho-
logical and ecological criteria.
Modifications of the previous concept of genera are those clusters of species, in which
the molecular differences between clusters are high (less than 95% similarity), but the
morphological data are unclear (or restricted). For example, the complex Dolichospermum/
Sphaerospermopsis/ Chrysosporum was clearly derived from Anabaena based primarily
on molecular data, because these genera are in distant clades and have a 16S rRNA gene
sequence similarity of lower than 95% and the morphological diacritical differences are
characteristic, but indistinct.
In contrast a number of other genera have relatively high genetic similarity (sometimes
only about 95% or more), but with clear discontinuities in morphology, life cycles and ecol-
ogy. We consider that these genera at least represent discrete lineages (Anabaenopsis/
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 317

Nodularia/Cyanospira/Cyanocohniella; Dolichospermum/Sphaerospermopsis/ Chrysosporum/

Aphanizomenon/ Cuspidothrix), or, at least are recognizable and delimited (Scytonema/
Brasilonema/Petalonema/Myochrotes ). For these genera additional regions of the
genome need to be sequenced so that multilocus phylogenies can be constructed and their
evolutionary identity or distinctness verified. These genera are still more or less limited,
defined by both phylogenetic and morphological criteria and it is likely that most of them
will be retained and confirmed precisely in the future.
The first of the modifications resulting from our generic definitions is the existence of
phylogenetically diverse lineages that are morphologically convergent and consequently
sometimes difficult to separate in the absence of molecular data. Prior to phylogenetic
analyses they were placed in genera based on their morphology, which appear to be well-
circumscribed, but turn out to be polyphyletic when subjected to phylogenetic analysis.
Often when the phylogeny is known, morphological and ecological characters can be
found that are congruent with the molecular data and then it is relatively easy to recognize
new genera. However, in some cases there are no clear morphological traits that can be
used to separate these phylogenetically distinct lineages. We recommend that some of
these traditional genera (e.g. Anabaena, Nodularia) be retained ad interim until sufficient
numbers of strains and sequences are generated and a stable recommendation for a new
classification can be made.
Several phylogenetically distinct clusters contain morphotypes that are almost identi-
cal. These genetic clusters are indistinguishable by any morphological or ecological crite-
rion, or only differ in terms of indistinct markers (e.g. ultrastructural differences, in their
ecology, unclear morphological differences – average width of thin filaments, etc.). Such
lineages (species clusters) can be differentiated on genetic or molecular criteria and should
be registered and designated as cryptic genera (cryptogenera). They should be classified
as generic units for phylogenetic as well as taxonomical (practical) reasons. At present, we
know of no cryptic genera, although it is very possible that they exist in many of the
polyphyletic genera. It is also likely that putative cryptic genera exist in the morphologi-
cally simplest types (e.g. Synechococcus, Pseudanabaena, Leptolyngbya). A typical
example is the case of Spirulina and Halospirulina. Cryptic genera are especially chal-
lenging in terms of taxonomic definition, because they do not meet the commonly applied
criteria for description of taxa.
Morphogenera are more or less genera only defined on the basis of their morphology.
Often these are old, traditional genera, clearly different in terms of their morphology (with
hiati between important features), but still without molecular characterization or only
slightly based on molecular data. Sometimes these are polyphyletic when eventually stud-
ied and may have sequence similarities slightly over or below 95%. Many of the genera in
the present system are likely to have this status. These genera can contain cryptic genera
that are not yet recognized. They should be further studied and their existence at the very
least should be registered in the literature. We save ad interim the names of such traditional
taxa, accepting that they will be revised in the future.
From the present analyses we know that there are types with almost identical or related
phylogenetic (molecular) markers, but distinctly different in morphology and biology
(with hiatus between important morphological or biological features). It is highly likely
that in such types there are genetic differences, which remain to be detected. An example
is Cylindrospermum and Cronbergia, which differ quite fundamentally morphologically
318 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

in the apoheterocytic or paraheterocytic development of akinetes, the form and position of

akinetes, position of heterocytes and type of initiation of polar or intercalar heterocytes.
The morphologically limiting characters of these two genera are clearly definable and it is
probable they will be shown to be genetically different in the future. Such clearly
recognizable types should be retained.
Modernization of any system complicates its application. Cyanobacteria are important
when working in ecology, technical hydrobiology, applied practice (agriculture, mass cul-
tivation of algae for different purposes, toxicology, etc.) and various experimental labora-
tories (biochemistry, molecular biology). Therefore, the acceptance of all revisions by tax-
onomists is realized only slowly and with a certain delay, but the confirmed and proved
changes should be continually introduced into laboratory and practical disciplines.
The same morphological character in different phylogenetic clades of cyanobacteria
can have different taxonomic values. Good examples are the spherical form and position
of akinetes in the genus Sphaerospermopsis, presence of aerotopes in Planktothrix and
Nodularia, the absence of calyptras and sheaths in Kamptonema, etc.
Both natural populations and morphotypes developing in cultures should be evaluated
in terms of morphological descriptions whenever possible. The morphology of numerous
cyanobacterial populations sometimes changes substantially in laboratory culture, where
they often form atypical and unusual forms under unfavourable conditions. This is impor-
tant, especially for those morphotypes with complicated and functionally diversified
thalli. In spite of this variability in culture, morphological appearance is characteristic,
particularly for various ecologically specialized taxa.
Within taxa (clusters) based on molecular sequence data there are special groups of
OTUs or types, morphologically distinctly separated from other members of the same
cluster (Dolichospermum: Aphanizomenon, Cuspidothrix). Or, vice versa, those with
a certain molecular difference exist, but without a distinct morphological or phylogenetic
separation and isolation (Spirulina / Halospirulina). Such cases can be evaluated as spe-
cial genera or included into morphogenera or cryptogenera categories according the
authors’ evaluation. The ability to define generic features and the morphology of such
units is usually difficult.
The 95% limit to molecular similarity used to separate generic entities according to
Wayne et al. (1987), Stackebrandt & Goebel (1994) and Stackebrandt & Ebers (2006)
poses problems. There never sharp limits exist in biology, and this criterion is only helpful
when similarity is below the limits, when it is informative. When it is above the limit, it
cannot be used as clear evidence of taxonomic identity. This method has been extensively
criticized (Ferris et al. 2003, Johansen & Casamatta 2005, Ward 2006, and others). How-
ever, this numerical guide can at least be part of the polyphasic evidence for evaluating
a generic separation as justified in cyanobacterial taxonomy.
Ecological niche is an important criterion used to separate and define genera. This is the
case for the majority of newly defined or circumscribed genera (Microcystis in freshwater
eutrophic phytoplankton, Oxynema or planktic Nodularia in brackish and mineral water,
Halothece and Euhalothece in saline and brackish habitats, Moorea in littoral zones of
tropical oceans, etc.; Garcia-Pichel et al. 1998, Chatchawan et al. 2012, Engene et al.
2012, and others). However, some exceptions exist and genera with broad ecological
ranges should be carefully studied.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 319

In modern genera, therefore, it is always necessary to determine the phylogenetic posi-

tion of the corresponding entity, as well as its morphological (and ecological) characters.
Registration of cryptogenera and morphogenera also has a role in advancing understand-
ing, but are only ad interim solutions to the description of genera following polyphasic
evaluation. It is also important to abide by nomenclatural rules in arriving at a satisfactory
classification of any organism in a system, but that aspect of the problem is not discussed
in this article and needs to be resolved in special forum.

Acknowledgements
This review was funded by grants GA CR P506/12/1818 and LH12100 and presented at the 19th IAC Symposium
in Cleveland, 27 July to 3 August 2013. The authors thank all colleagues working on the modernization of the
cyanobacterial system. Particularly, we wish to thank the participants of the 19th IAC-symposium in Cleveland
(2013) for permission to cite the generic units in our system that were proposed at that meeting and susequently
published in 2014. They are Markéta Bohunická (Třeboň), Petr Dvořák (Olomouc), Petr Hašler (Olomouc),
Tomáš Hauer (Třeboň), Laura Miscoe (Cleveland), Radka Mühlsteinová (České Budějovice), Nicole Pietrasiak
(Cleveland) and Ota Strunecký (Třeboň).

Souhrn
Jedinou metodou registrace diversity jakýchkoliv organismů je taxonomická klasifikace. Taxonomická kritéria se
vyvíjejí v závislosti na ostatních vědních disciplínách a procházejí tedy určitými změnami. Systematický přehled
sinic (cyanobakterií) byl změněn a opraven velmi podstatně v uplynulých 30 letech, zejména po aplikaci po-
znatků z elektronové mikroskopie a na základě molekulárních metod. Vědecká komunita a zejména pracovníci
v aplikovaných ekologických a experimentálních, laboratorních disciplínách by měli akceptovat urgentně nejno-
vější informace o hlavních výsledcích modernizace systému, založeného nově na zjištěných fylogenetických zá-
vislostech. V předloženém článku jsou shrnuty výsledky a opravy cyanobakteriální klasifikace, publikované
a ověřené do konce roku 2013 (s několika nejnovějšími ověřenými novinkami z roku 2014) a jsou v něm definová-
ny hlavní směry další problematiky a dalšího studia v této vědní disciplíně. Rovněž je přiloženo schéma
nejmodernějšího systému sinic, založeném na preferovaném, tzv. polyfázickém přístupu.

References
Abed R. M. M., Garcia-Pichel F. & Hernández-Mariné M. (2002): Polyphasic characterization of benthic, moder-
ately halophilic, moderately thermophilic cyanobacteria with very thin trichomes and the proposal of
Halomicronema excentricum gen. nov., sp. nov. – Arch. Microbiol. 177: 361–370.
Abed R. M. M., Palinska K. A., Camoin G. & Golubić S. (2006): Common evolutionary origin of planktonic and ben-
thic nitrogen-fixing oscillatoriacean cyanobacteria from tropical oceans. – FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 260: 171–177.
Acinas S. G., Haverkamp T. H. A., Huisman J. & Stal L. J. (2009): Phenotypic and genetic diversification of
Pseudanabaena spp. (Cyanobacteria). – ISME J. 3: 31–46.
Aguiar R., Fiore M. F., Franco M. W., Ventrella M. C., Lorenzi A. S., Vanetti C. A. & Alfenas A. C. (2008): A
novel epiphytic cyanobacterial species from the genus Brasilonema causing damage to Eucalyptus leaves. – J.
Phycol. 44: 1322–1334.
Anagnostidis K. & Komárek J. (1985): Modern approach to the classification system of the cyanophytes 1: Intro-
duction. – Algol. Stud. 38/39: 291–302.
Anagnostidis K. & Komárek J. (1988): Modern approach to the classification system of the cyanophytes 3:
Oscillatoriales. – Algol. Stud. 50/53: 327–472.
Anagnostidis K. & Komárek J. (1990): Modern approach to the classification system of the cyanophytes 5:
Stigonematales. – Algol. Stud. 86: 1–74.
*Anonymous (2013): The 19th Symposium of the Internation Society for Cyanophyte Research. – John Carroll
Univ. Cleveland, USA.

* References marked by * are not cited in the text or in the appendix but were necessary for the construction of
the modern, present system
320 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Bahl J., Lau M. C. Y., Smith G. J. D., Vijaykrishna D., Cary S. C., Lacap D. C., Lee C. K., Papke R. T., Warren-
Rhodes K. A., Wong F. K. Y., McKay C. P. & Pointing S. B. (2011): Ancient origins determine global
biogeography of hot and cold desert cyanobacteria. – Nature Communications 2: 163.
Barker G. L. A., Hayes P. K., O’Mahony S. L., Vacharapiyasophon P. & Walsby A. E. (1999): A molecular and
phenotypic analysis of Nodularia (Cyanobacteria) from the Baltic Sea. – J. Phycol. 35: 931–937.
Barker G. L. A., Konopka A., Hanley B. A. & Hayes P. K. (2000): Genetic variation in Aphanizomenon
(Cyanobacteria) colonies from the Baltic Sea and North America. – J. Phycol. 36: 947–950.
Becerra-Absalón I., Rodarte B., Osorio K., Alba-Lois L., Segal-Kischinevzky C. & Montejano G. (2013): A new
species of Brasilonema (Scytonemataceae, Cyanoprokaryota) from Tolantongo, Hidalgo, Central Mexico. –
Fottea 13: 25–38.
Berrendero E., Perona E. & Mateo P. (2008): Genetic and morphological characterization of Rivularia and
Calothrix (Nostocales, Cyanobacteria) from running water. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 58: 447–460.
Berrendero E., Perona E. & Mateo P. (2011): Phenotypic variability and phylogenetic relationships of the genera
Tolypothrix and Calothrix (Nostocales, Cyanobacteria) from running water. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.
61: 3039–3051.
Bohunická M., Johansen J. R. & Fučíková K. (2011): Tapinothrix clintonii sp. nov. (Pseudanabaenaceae,
Cyanobacteria), a new species at the nexus of five genera. – Fottea 11: 127–140.
Bohunická M., Mareš J., Hauer T. & Komárek J. (2013): Revision of a recently described pantropical genus
Brasilonema Fiore et al. (Nostocaceae, Cyanobacteria). – In: Book of abstracts, 19th Symp. IAC, p. 19,
Cleveland, USA.
Bornet E. & Flahault C. (1886–1888): Revision des Nostocacées hétérocystées. – Ann. Sci. Not. Bot. 7 Ser., 3:
323–381, 4: 343–373, 5: 51–129, 7: 177–262.
*Bottos E. M., Vincent W. F., Greer C. W. & Whyte L. G. (2008): Prokaryotic diversity of arctic ice shelf micro-
bial mats. – Env. Microbiol. 10: 950–966.
Bourrelly P. (1970): Les algues d’eau douce III. – N. Boubée & Cie., Paris.
Boyer S. L., Johansen J. R., Flechtner V. R. & Howard G. L. (2002): Phylogeny and genetic variance in terrestrial
Microcoleus (Cyanophyceae) species based on sequence analysis of the 16S rRNA gene and associated 16S-
23S its region. – J. Phycol. 38: 1222–1235.
Brito A., Ramos V., Seabra R., Santos A., Santos C. L., Lopo M., Ferreira S., Martins A., Mota R., Frazao B.,
Martins R., Vasconcelos V. & Tamagnini P. (2012): Culture-dependent characterization of cyanobacterial
diversity in the intertidal zones of the Portuguese coast: a polyphasic study. – Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 35:
110–119.
Broady P. A. & Kibblewhite A. L. (1991): Morphological characterization of Oscillatoriales (Cyanobacteria)
from Ross Island and southern Victoria Land, Antarctica. – Antarct. Sci. 3: 35–45.
Brown I. I., Mummey D. & Cooksey K. E. (2005): A novel cyanobacterium exhibiting an elevated tolerance for
iron. – FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 52: 307–314.
*Bryant D. A. (1994): The moleclular biology of cyanobacteria. – Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Büdel B. & Kauff F. (2012): Blue-green algae. – In Frey W. (ed.), Syllabus of plant families, Engler’s syllabus der
Pflanzenfamilien, part VI, p. 5–39, Borntraeger, Stuttgart.
*Burns B. P., Seifert A., Goh F., Pomati F., Jungblut A. D., Serhat A. & Neilan B. A. (2005): Genetic potential for
secondary metabolite production in stromatolite communities. – FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 243: 293–301.
Casamatta D. A., Gomez S. R. & Johansen J. R. (2006): Rexia erecta gen. et sp. nov. and Capsosira lowei sp. nov.,
two newly described cyanobacterial taxa from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (USA). –
Hydrobiologia 561: 13–26.
Casamatta D. A., Johansen J. R., Vis M. L. & Broadwater S. T. (2005): Molecular and morphological character-
ization of ten polar and near-polar strains within the Oscillatoriales (Cyanobacteria). – J. Phycol. 41:
421–438.
Casamatta D. A., Stanic D., Gantar M. & Richardson L. L. (2012): Characterization of Roseofilum reptotaenium
(Oscillatoriales, Cyanobacteria) gen. et sp. nov. isolated from Caribbean black band disease. – Phycologia
51: 489–499.
*Casamatta D. A., Vis M. L. & Sheath R. G. (2003): Cryptic species in cyanobacterial systematics: a case study of
Phormidium retzii (Oscillatoriales) using RAPD molecular markers and 16S rDNA sequence data. – Aquatic
Bot. 77: 295–309.
Castenholz R. W. (2001): Phylum BX. Cyanobacteria. – In: Boone D. R. & Castenholz R. W. (eds), Bergey’s
manual of systematic bacteriology, p. 473–599, Springer, New York.
Chatchawan T., Komárek J., Strunecký O., Šmarda J. & Peerapornpisal Y. (2012): Oxynema, a new genus sepa-
rated from the genus Phormidium (Cyanophyta). – Cryptogam. Algol. 33: 41–59.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 321

Chisholm S. W., Frankel S. L., Goericke R., Olson R. J., Palenik B., Waterburry J. B., Westjohnsrud L. & Zettler
E. R. (1992): Prochlorococcus marinus nov. gen., nov.sp., an oxyphototrphic marine prokaryote cantaining
divynyl chlorophyll A and chlorophyll B. – Arch. Microbiol. 157: 297–300.
Choi D. H., Noh J. H., Lee C. M. & Rho S. (2008): Rubidibacter lacunae gen. nov., sp. nov., a unicellular,
phycoerythrin-containing cyanobacterium isolated from seawater of Chuuk lagoon, Micronesia. – Int. J. Syst.
Evol. Microbiol. 58: 2807–2811.
Claus G. (1959): Re-evaluation of the genus Gomontiella. – Rev. Algol., ser. n., 2: 103–110.
*Criscuolo A. & Gribaldo S. (2011): Large-scale phylogenomic analyses indicate a deep origin of primary plas-
tids within cyanobacteria. – Mol. Biol. Evol. 28: 3019–3032.
Dadheech P. K., Abed R. M. M., Mahmoud H., Krishna Mohan M. & Krienitz L. (2012a): Polyphasic character-
ization of cyanobacteria isolated from desert crusts, and the description of Desertifilum tharense gen. et sp.
nov. (Oscillatoriales). – Phycologia 51: 260–270.
Dadheech P. K., Balot A., Casper P., Kotut K., Novelo E., Lemma B., Preschold T. & Krienitz L. (2010): Phylo-
genetic relationship and divergence among planktonic strains of Arthrospira (Oscillatoriales,
Cyanobacteria) of African, Asian and American origin deduced by 16S-23S ITS and phycocyanin operon
sequences. – Phycologia 49: 361–372.
Dadheech P. K., Mahmoud H., Kotut K. & Krienitz L. (2012b): Haloleptolyngbya alcalis gen. et sp. nov., a new
filamentous cyanobacterium from the soda lake Nakuru, Kenya. – Hydrobiologia 691: 269–283.
Dagan T., Roettger M., Stucken K., Landan G., Koch R., Major P., Gould S. B., Goremykin V. V., Rippka R.,
Tandeau de Marsac N., Gugger M., Lockhart P. J., Allen J. F., Brune I., Maus I., Pühler A. & Martin W.
(2013): Genomes of stigonematalean cyanobacteria (subsection V) and the evolution of oxygenic photosyn-
thesis from prokaryotes to plastids. – Genome Biol. Evol. 5: 31–44.
de los Ríos A., Valea S., Ascaso C., Davila A., Kaštovský J., McKay C. P., Gómez-Silva B. & Wierzchos J.
(2010): Comparative analysis of the microbial communities inhabiting halite evaporites of the Atacama
Desert. – Intern. Microbiol. 13: 79–89.
Desikachary T. V. (1959): Cyanophyta. – I.C.A.R. Monographs on Algae, New Delhi.
Dominguez-Escobar J., Beltran Y., Bergman B., Diez B., Ininbergs K., Souza V. & Falcon L. I. (2011): Phylogen-
etic and molecular clock inferences of cyanobacterial strains within Rivulariaceae from distant environments.
– FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 316: 90–99.
*Doolittle W. F. & Papke R. T. (2006): Genomics and the bacterial species problem. – Genome Biol. 7: No 116.
Drouet F. (1968): Revision of the classification of the Oscillatoriaceae. – Monography of Academy of National
Sciences, Philadelphia.
Drouet F. (1973): Revision of the Nostocaceae with cylindrical trichomes. – Hafner Press, New York.
Drouet F. (1978): Revision of the Nostocaceae with constricted trichomes. – Beih. Nova Hedwigia 57: 1–258.
Drouet F. (1981): Revision of the Stigonemataceae with a summary of the classification of the blue-green algae. –
Beih. Nova Hedwigia 66: 1–221.
Drouet F. & Daily W. A. (1956): Revision of the coccoid Myxophyceae. – Butler Univ. Bot. Stud. 12: 1–218.
Dvořák P., Hindák F., Hašler P., Hindáková A. & Poulíčková A. (2014): Morphological and molecular studies of
Neosynechococcus sphagnicola, gen. et sp. nov. (Cyanobacteria, Chroococcales). – Phytotaxa 170, doi:
10.11646/phytotaxa.170.1.3.
Elenkin A. A. (1936–1949): Monografia algarum cyanophycearum aquidulcium at terrestrium in finibus URSS
inventarum [Blue-green algae of the USSR]. – Izdat. Akad. Nauk SSSR.
Engene N., Byrum T., Thor A., Ellisman M. H., Gerwick W. H. & Paul V. J. (2013a): Five chemically rich species
of tropical marine cyanobacteria of the genus Tropicimarinus gen. nov. (Oscillatoriales). – In: Book of
abstracts, 19th Symposium of the International Society for Cyanophyte Research, p. 32, Cleveland, Ohio.
Engene N., Paul V., Byrum T., Gerwick W., Thor A. & Ellisman M. H. (2013b): Chemically rich species of tropi-
cal marine cyanobacteria of the genus Okeania gen. nov (Oscillatoriales, Cyanoprokaryota). – J. Phycol. 49:
1095–1106.
Engene N., Rottacker E. C., Kaštovský J., Byrum T., Choi H., Ellisman M. H., Komárek J. & Gerwick W. H.
(2012): Moorea producta gen. nov., sp. nov. and Moorea bouillonii comb. nov., tropical marine cyanobacteria
rich in bioactive secondary metabolites. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 62: 1171–1178.
*Everroad R. C. & Wood A. M. (2006): Comparative molecular evolution of newly discovered
picocyanobacterial strains reveals a phylogenetically informative variable region of beta-phycoerythrin. – J.
Phycol. 42: 1300–1311.
Ferris M. J., Kuhl M., Wieland A. & Ward D. M. (2003): Cyanobacterial ecotypes in different optical
microenvironments of a 68 degrees C hot spring mat community revealed by 16S-23S rRNA internal tran-
scribed spacer region variation. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 69: 2893–2898.
322 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Fewer D., Friedl T. & Büdel B. (2002): Chroococcidiopsis and heterocyst-differentiating cyanobacteria are each
other's closest living relatives. – Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 23: 82–90.
Fiore M. F., Alvarenga D. O., Genuário D. B., Andreote A. P. D., Hauer T. & Komárek J. (2013): Dactylothamnos
gen. nov., a novel member of Microchaetaceae isolated from extreme environments. – In: Book of abstracts,
19th Symposium of the International Society for Cyanophyte Research, p. 22, Cleveland, Ohio.
Fiore M. F., Sant’Anna C. L., Azevedo M. T. P., Komárek J., Kaštovský J., Sulek J. & Lorenzi A. S. (2007): The
cyanobacterial genus Brasilonema – molecular and phenotype evaluation. – J. Phycol. 43: 789–798.
Flechtner V. R., Boyer S. L., Johansen J. R. & Denoble M. L. (2002): Spirirestis rafaelensis gen. et sp. nov.
(Cyanophyceae), a new cyanobacterial genus from arid soils. – Nova Hedwigia 4: 1–24.
Florenzano G., Sili C., Pelosi E. & Vicenzini M. (1985): Cyanospira rippkae and Cyanospira capsulate (gen. nov.
and spp. nov.): a new filamentous heterocytous cyanobacteria from Magadi Lake (Kenya). – Arch. Microbiol.
140: 301–306.
Foster J. S., Green S. J., Ahrendt S. R., Golubić S., Reid R. P., Hetherington K. L. & Bebout L. (2009): Molecular
and morphological characterization of cyanobacterial diversity in the stromatolites of Highborne Cay, Baha-
mas. – ISME J. 3: 573–587.
Frémy P. (1929): Les Nostocacées de la Normandie. – Not. Mem. Doc. Soc. Agric. Archéol. Hist. nat. Manche 41:
197–228.
Frey W. (ed.) (2012): Blue-green algae. – In: Syllabus of plant families 1/1, Ed. 13, p. 5–39, Borntraeger.
Friedmann E. (1980): Endolithic microbial life in hot and cold deserts. – Origins of Life 10: 223–235.
*Garcia-Martinez J., Acinas S. G., Anton A. I. & Rodriguez-Valera F. (1999): Use of the 16S-23S ribosomal
genes spacer region in studies of prokaryotic diversity. – J. Microbiol. Methods 36: 55–64.
*Garcia-Pichel F. (2008): Molecular ecology and environmental genomics of cyanobacteria. – In: Herrero A. &
Flores E. (eds), The cyanobacteria: molecular biology, genomics and evolution, p. 59–87, Caister Academic
Press, Norfolk.
Garcia-Pichel F., Loza V., Marusenko Y., Mateo P. & Potrafka R. (2013): Microcoleus vs. Microcoleus at the OK
corral. – In: Book of abstracts, 19th Symposium of the International Society for Cyanophyte Research, p. 23,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Garcia-Pichel F., Nübel U. & Muyzer G. (1998): The phylogeny of unicellular, extremely halotolerant
cyanobacteria. – Arch. Microbiol. 169: 469–482.
Garcia-Pichel F., Prufert-Bebout L. & Muyzer G. (1996): Phenotypic and phylogenetic analyses show
Microcoleus chthonoplastes to be a cosmopolitan cyanobacterium. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 62: 3284–3291.
Geitler L. (1925): Cyanophyceae. – In: Pascher A. (ed.), Süswasserflora 12, p. 481, Gustav Fischer Verl., Jena.
Geitler L. (1932): Cyanophyceae. – In: Rabenhorst’s Kryptogamen Flora von Deutschland, Vol. 14, p. 1196,
Akad. Verlagsges., Leipzig.
Geitler L. (1942): Schizophyta (Klasse Schizophyceae). – In: Engler A. & Prantl K. (eds), Natürliche
Pflanzenfamilien 1b: 1–232, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.
Genuário D. B., Corręa D. M., Komárek J. & Fiore M. F. (2013): Characterization of freshwater benthic biofilm-
forming Hydrocoryne (Cyanobacteria) isolates from Antarctica. – J. Phycol. 49: 1142–1153.
*Giovannoni S. J., Britschgi T. B., Moyer C. L. & Field K. G. (1990): Genetic diversity in Sargasso Sea
bacterioplankton. – Nature 345: 60–63.
*Giovannoni S. J., Turner S., Olsen G. J., Barns S., Lane D. J. & Pace N. R. (1988): Evolutionary relationship
among cyanobacteria and green chloroplasts. – J. Bacteriol. 170: 3584–3592.
Gkelis S., Rajaniemi P., Vardaka E., Moustaka-Gouni M., Lanaras T. & Sivonen K. (2005): Limnothrix redekei
(Van Goor) Meffert (Cyanobacteria) strains from Lake Kastoria, Greece form a separate phylogenetic group.
– Microbiol. Ecol. 49: 176–182.
Golubić S. & Campbell S. E. (1981): Biogenically formed aragonite concretions in marine Rivularia. – In: Monty
C. L. V. (ed.), Phanerozoic stromatolites, p. 209–229, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Gomont M. (1892): Monographie des Oscillatoriées (Nostocacées homocystées). – Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. Ser. 7, 15:
263–368, 16: 91–264.
Gugger M. & Hoffmann L. (2004): Polyphyly of true branching cyanobacteria (Stigonematales). – Int. J. Syst.
Evol. Microbiol. 54: 349–357.
Gugger M., Molica R., Le Berre B., Dufour P., Bernard C. & Humbert J. F. (2005): Genetic diversity of
Cylindrospermopsis strains (Cyanobacteria) isolated from four continents. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 71:
1097–1100.
Guglielmi G. & Cohen-Bazire G. (1984a): Étude taxonomique d'un genre de cyanobactérie oscillatoriacée: le
genre Pseudanabaena Lauterborn. I. Étude ultrastructurale. – Protistologica 20: 377–391.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 323

Guglielmi G. & Cohen-Bazire G. (1984b): Étude taxonomique d'un genre de cyanobactérie oscillatoriacée: le
genre Pseudanabaena Lauterborn. II. Analyse de la composition moléculaire et de la structure des
phycobilisomes. – Protistologica 20: 393–413.
*Hagemann M. (2002): Environmental stress, signalling and basic acclimation reactions. – In: Solheim R. (ed.),
Cyanobacteria and nitrogen fixation in extreme environments, p. 24, European Science Foundation
CYANOFIX, Tromsř.
*Hansgirg A. (1889): Prodromus českých řas sladkovodních [Prodromus of freshwater algae of Bohemia]. –
Archiv pro přírodovědecký výzkum Čech, Praha.
*Haselkorn R. (1986): Organization of the genes for nitrogen fixation in photosynthetic bacteria and
cyanobacteria. – Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 40: 525–547.
Hašler P., Dvořák P., Johansen J. R., Kitner M., Ondřej V. & Poulíčková A. (2012): Morphological and molecular
study of epipelic filamentous genera Phormidium, Microcoleus and Geitlerinema (Oscillatoriales,
Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria). – Fottea 12: 341–356.
Hašler P., Dvořák P. & Poulíčková A. (2014a): A new genus of filamentous epipelic cyanobacteria, Johansenia. –
Preslia 86: 81–94.
Hašler P., Dvořák P. & Poulíčková A. (2014b): Johanseninema, a corrected name for a recently described genus
of filamentous epipelic cyanobacteria. – Preslia 86: 293–294.
Hašler P. & Poulíčková A. (2010): Diversity, taxonomy and autecology of autochtonous epipelic cyanobacteria of
the genera Komvophoron and Isocystis (Borziaceae, Oscillatoriales). – Biologia 65: 7–16.
Hauer T., Bohunická M. & Mühlsteinová R. (2013): Calochaete gen. nov. (Cyanobacteria, Nostocales), a new
cyanobacterial type from the “páramo” zone in Costa Rica. – Phytotaxa 109: 36–44.
Hauer T., Bohunická M., Johansen J. R., Mareš J. & Berrendero-Gomez E. (2014): Reassessment of the
cyanobacterial family Microchaetaceae and establishment of new families Tolypothrichaceae and
Godleyaceae. – J. Phycol. (in press, doi: 10.1111/jpy.12241).
*Herrero A. & Flores E. (2008): The cyanobacteria: molecular biology, genomics and evolution. – Caister Aca-
demic Press, Norfolk.
Hickel B. (1985): Cyanonephron styloides gen. et sp. nov., a new chroococcal blue-green alga (Cyanophyta) from
a brackish lake. – Algol. Stud. 38/39: 99–104.
Hindák F. (2008): On Chlorogloeopsis fritschii (Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria) from thermal springs in Slovakia
and from saline lake in Tunissia. – Algol. Stud. 126: 47–64.
Hoffmann L. (2005): Nomenclature of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria: round table on the unification of the nomen-
clature under the Botanical and Bacteriological Codes. – Algol. Stud. 117: 13–29.
Hoffmann L., Komárek J. & Kaštovský J. (2005a): System of cyanoprokaryotes (cyanobacteria) – state in 2004. –
Algol. Stud. 117: 95–115.
Hoffmann L., Komárek J. & Kaštovský J. (2005b): Proposal of cyanobacterial system – 2004. – In: Büdel B.,
Krienitz L., Gärtner G. & Schagerl M. (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 19/2, p. 657–660,
Elsevier/Spektrum, Heidelberg.
Honda D., Yokota A. & Sugiyama J. (1999): Detection of seven major evolutionary lineages in cyanobacteria
based on the 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis with new sequences of five marine Synechococcus strains. – J.
Mol. Evol. 48: 723–739.
Hrouzek P., Lukešová A., Mareš J. & Ventura S. (2013): Description of the cyanobacterial genus Desmonostoc
gen. nov. including D. muscorum comb. nov. as a distinct and phylogenetically coherent taxon related to the
genus Nostoc. – Fottea 13: 201–213.
Ishida T., Watanabe M. M., Sugiyama J. & Yokota A. (2001): Evidence for polyphyletic origin of the members of
the orders of Oscillatoriales and Pleurocapsales as determined by 16S rDNA analysis. – FEMS Microbiol.
Lett. 201: 79–82.
Iteman I., Rippka R., de Marsac N. T. & Herdman M. (2000): Comparison of conserved structural and regulatory
domains within divergent 16S rRNA-23S rRNA spacer sequences of cyanobacteria. – Microbiology 146:
1275–1286.
Iteman I., Rippka R., de Marsac N. T. & Herdmann M. (2002): rDNA analyses of planktonic heterocystous
cyanobacteria, including members of the genera Anabaenopsis and Cyanospira. – Microbiology 148:
481–496.
Janson S., Wouters J., Bergman B. & Carpenter E. J. (1999): Host specificity in the Richelia - diatom symbiosis
revealed by hetR gene sequence analysis. – Env. Microbiol. 1: 431–438.
Jeeji-Bai N. (1972): The genus Westiellopsis. – In: Desikachary T. V. (ed.), Taxonomy and biology of blue-green
algae, p. 62–74, Univ. Madras.
324 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

*Jezberová J. (2006): Phenotypic diversity and phylogeny of picocyanobacteria in mesotrophic and eutrophic
freshwater reservoirs investigated by a cultivation-dependent polyphasic approach. – PhD Thesis, Faculty of
Biological Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice.
Johansen J. R., Bohunická M., Lukešová A., Hrčková K., Vaccarino M. A. & Chesarino N. M. (2014): Morpho-
logical and molecular characterization within 26 strains of the genus Cylindrospermum (Nostocaceae,
Cyanobacteria), with descriptions of three new species. J. Phycol. 50: 187–202
Johansen J. R. & Casamatta D. A. (2005): Recognizing cyanobacterial diversity through adoption of a new spe-
cies paradigm. – Algol. Stud. 117: 71–93.
Johansen J. R., Kováčik L., Casamatta D. A., Fučíková K. & Kaštovský J. (2011): Utility of 16S-23S ITS
sequence and secondary structure for recognition of intrageneric and intergeneric limits within cyanobacterial
taxa: Leptolyngbya corticola sp. nov. (Pseudanabaenaceae, Cyanobacteria). – Nova Hedwigia 92: 283–302.
*Johansen J. R., Pietrasiak N., Osorio-Santos K., Bohunická M., Miscoe L., Kováčik L. & Martin M. P. (2013):
Has the time come to name cryptic species of cyanobacteria? A case study in Oculatella. – In: Book of
abstracts, 19th Symposium of the International Society for Cyanophyte Research, p. 15, Cleveland, Ohio.
*Jungblut A. D., Lovejoy C. & Vincent W. F. (2010): Global distribution of cyanobacterial ecotypes in the cold
biosphere. – ISME J. 4: 191–202.
Kaštovský J., Berrendero-Gomez E., Hladil J. & Johansen J. R. (2014): Cyanocohniella calida gen. nov. et spec.
nov. (Cyanobacteria: Aphanizomenonaceae) a new cyanobacterium from the thermal springs from Karlovy
Vary, Czech Republic. – Phytotaxa 181: 279-292.
Kaštovský J. & Johansen J. R. (2008): Mastigocladus laminosus (Stigonematales, Cyanobacteria): phylogenetic
relationship to the soil-inhabiting genera of the order, and taxonomic implications for the genus. – Phycologia
47: 307–320.
Kato T., Watanabe M. F. & Watanabe M. (1991): Allozyme divergence of Microcystis (Cyanophyceae) and its
taxonomic inferrence. – Algol. Stud. 64: 129–140.
Katoh H., Itoh S., Shen J. R. & Ikeuchi M. (2001): Functional analysis of psbV and a novel c-type cytochrome
gene psbV2 of the thermophylic cyanobacterium Thermosynechococcus elongatus strain BP-1. – Plant Cell
Physiol. 42: 599–607.
Katoh K. & Standley D. M. (2013): MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in
performance and usability. – Mol. Biol. Evol. 30: 772–780.
Knoll A. H. (2008): Cyanobacteria and earth history. – In: Herrero A. & Flores E. (eds), The cyanobacteria:
molecular biology, genomics and evolution, p. 1–19, Caister Academic Press, Norfolk.
Komárek J. (2001): Review of the cyanoprokaryotic genus Romeria. – Czech Phycol. 1: 5–19.
*Komárek J. (2006): Cyanobacterial taxonomy: current problems and prospects for the integration of traditional
and molecular approaches. – Algae 21: 349–375.
Komárek J. (2008): The cyanobacterial genus Macrospermum. – Fottea 8: 79–86.
*Komárek J. (2010a): Modern taxonomic revision of planktic nostocacean cyanobacteria: a short review of gen-
era. – Hydrobiologia 639: 231–243.
*Komárek J. (2010b): Recent changes (2008) in cyanobacterial taxonomy based on a combination of molecular
background with phenotype and ecological consequences (genus and species concept). – Hydrobiologia 639:
245–259.
Komárek J. (2013): Cyanoprokaryota. 3. Heterocytous genera. – In: Büdel B., Gärtner G., Krienitz L. & Schagerl
M. (eds), Süswasserflora von Mitteleuropa/Freshwater flora of Central Europe, p. 1130, Springer Spektrum
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Komárek J. & Anagnostidis K. (1986): Modern approach to the classification system of the cyanophytes 2:
Chroococcales. – Algol. Stud. 43: 157–226.
Komárek J. & Anagnostidis K. (1989): Modern approach to the classification system of the cyanophytes 4:
Nostocales. – Algol. Stud. 56: 247–345.
Komárek J. & Anagnostidis K. (1998): Cyanoprokaryota 1. Chroococcales. – In: Ettl H., Gärtner G., Heynig H.
& Mollenhauer D. (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 19/1, p. 548, Gustav Fischer, Jena-Stuttgart-
Lübeck-Ulm.
Komárek J. & Anagnostidis K. (2005): Cyanoprokaryota. 2. Oscillatoriales. – In: Büdel B., Krienitz L., Gärtner
G. & Schagerl M. (eds), Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 19/2, p. 759, Elsevier/Spektrum, Heidelberg.
Komárek J., Cepák V., Kaštovský J. & Sulek J. (2004): What are the cyanobacterial genera Cyanothece and
Cyanobacterium? Contribution to the combined molecular and phenotype taxonomic evaluation of
cyanobacterial diversity. – Algol. Stud. 113: 1–36.
Komárek J. & Hindák F. (1989): The genus Eucapsis (Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria) in Czechoslovakia. – Acta
Hydrobiol. 31: 25–34.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 325

Komárek J., Hübel M., Hübel H. & Šmarda J. (1993): The Nodularia studies 2. Taxonomy. – Algol. Stud. 68:
1–25.
Komárek J. & Kaštovský J. (2003): Coincidences of structural and molecular characters in evolutionary lines of
cyanobacteria. – Algol. Stud. 148: 305–325.
Komárek J., Kaštovský J. & Jezberová J. (2011): Phylogenetic and taxonomic delimitation of the cyanobacterial
genera Aphanothece Nägeli and Anathece (Komárek et Anagnostidis) comb. nova. – Eur. J. Phycol. 46:
315–326.
Komárek J., Kaštovský J., Ventura S., Turicchia S. & Šmarda J. (2009): The cyanobacterial genus Phormidesmis.
– Algol. Stud. 129: 41–59.
Komárek J. & Komárková J. (2002): Review of the European Microcystis- morphospecies (Cyanoprokaryotes)
from nature. – Czech Phycol. 2: 1–24.
Komárek J. & Komárková J. (2003): Phenotype diversity of the cyanoprokaryotic genus Cylindrospermopsis
(Nostocales); review 2002. – Czech Phycol. 3: 1–30.
Komárek J. & Mareš J. (2012): An update to modern taxonomy (2011) of freshwater planktic heterocytous
cyanobacteria. – Hydrobiologia 698: 327–351.
Komárek J. & Montejano G. (1994): Taxonomic evaluation of several Chlorogloea species (Cyanoprocaryota)
from inland biotopes. – Algol. Stud. 74: 1–26.
Komárek J., Nedbalová L. & Hauer T. (2012): Phylogenetic position and taxonomy of three heterocytous
cyanobacteria dominating the littoral of deglaciated lakes, James Ross Island, Antarctica. – Polar Biol. 35:
759–774.
Komárek J., Sant’Anna C. L., Bohunická M., Mareš J., Hentschke G. S., Rigonato J. & Fiore M. F. (2013a): Pheno-
type diversity and phylogeny of selected Scytonema-species (Cyanoprokaryota) from SE Brazil. – Fottea 13:
173–200.
Komárek J., Taton A., Sulek J., Wilmotte A., Kaštovská K. & Elster J. (2006): Ultrastructure and taxonomic posi-
tion of two species of the cyanobacterial genus Schizothrix. – Cryptogam. Algol. 27: 53–62.
Komárek J. & Zapomělová E. (2007): Planktic morphospecies of the cyanobacterial genus Anabaena = subg.
Dolichospermum – 1. part: coiled types. – Fottea 7: 1–31.
Komárek J. & Zapomělová E. (2008): Planktic morphospecies of the cyanobacterial genus Anabaena = subg.
Dolichospermum – 2. part: straight types. – Fottea 8: 1–14.
Komárek J., Zapomělová E. & Hindák F. (2010): Cronbergia gen. nov., a new cyanobacterial genus (Cyanophyta)
with a special strategy of heterocyte formation. – Cryptogamie Algol. 31: 321–341.
Komárek J., Zapomělová E., Šmarda J., Kopecký J., Rejmánková E., Woodhouse J., Neilan B. A. & Komárková J.
(2013b): Polyphasic evaluation of Limnoraphis robusta, a water–bloom forming cyanobacterium from Lake
Atitlán, Guatemala, with a description of Limnoraphis gen. nov. – Fottea 13: 39–52.
Komárková J., Jezberová J., Komárek O. & Zapomělová E. (2010): Variability of Chroococcus (Cyanobacteria)
morphospecies with regard to phylogenetic relationships. – Hydrobiologia 639: 69–83.
Komárková J., Zapomělová E. & Komárek J. (2013): Chakia (Cyanobacteria), a new heterocytous genus from
Belizean marshes identified on the basis of the 16S rRNA gene. – Fottea 13: 227–233.
Komárková-Legnerová J. (1991): Epigloeosphaera, a new cyanophyte genus from Nordic lakes. – Algol. Stud.
62: 7–12.
Komárková-Legnerová J. & Cronberg G. (1985): Lemmermanniella pallida (Lemm.) Geitl. from South Swedish
Lakes. – Algol. Stud. 40: 403–413.
*Korelusová J. (2005): Polyphasic approach to phylogeny of chroococcalean Cyanobacteria. – Bc Thesis, Fac-
ulty of Sciences, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice.
Korelusová J., Kaštovský J. & Komárek J. (2009): Heterogeneity of the cyanobacterial genus Synechocystis and
description of a new genus Geminocystis. – J. Phycol. 45: 928–937.
Kováčik L., Jezberová J., Komárková J., Kopecký J. & Komárek J. (2011): Ecological characteristics and taxo-
nomic classification of stable pigment-types isolated from a cyanobacterial population of the genus
Chroococcus (Cyanobacteria). – Preslia 83: 145–166.
Kováčik L. & Komárek J. (1988): Scytonematopsis starmachii, a new cyanophyte species from the High Tatra
Mts (Czechoslovakia). – Algol. Stud. 50–53: 303–314.
Kozhevnikov I. V. & Kozhevnikova N. A. (2011): Phylogenetic and morphological evaluation of Wollea saccata
(Nostocales, Cyanobacteria) isolated from the Yenissei River basin. – Fottea 11: 99–106.
*Lamprinou V., Economou-Amilli A. & Pantazidou A. (2013): Taxonomic survey of cyanobacteria from Greek
caves: do hypogean ecosystems favor speciation? – In: Book of abstracts, 19th Symposium of the Interna-
tional Society for Cyanophyte Research, p. 43, Cleveland, Ohio.
326 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Lamprinou V., Hernández-Mariné M., Canals T., Kormas K., Economou-Amilli A. & Pantazidou A. (2011): Mor-
phology and molecular evaluation of Iphinoe spelaeobios gen. nov., sp. nov. and Loriellopsis cavernicola gen.
nov., sp. nov., two stigonematalean cyanobacteria from Greek and Spanish caves. – Int. J. Syst. Evol.
Microbiol. 61: 2907–2915.
Lamprinou V., Skaraki K., Kotoulas G., Economou-Amilli A. & Pantazidou A. (2012): Toxopsis calypsus gen.
nov., sp. nov. (Cyanobacteria, Nostocales) from cave ‘Francthi’, Peloponnese, Greece: a morphological and
molecular evaluation. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 62: 2870–2877.
Lapage S. P., Sneath P. H. A., Lessel E. F., Skerman V. B. D., Seeliger H. P. R. & Clark W. A. (1992): International
code of nomenclature of bacteria (1990 revision). Bacteriological code. – American Society for Microbiol-
ogy, Washington DC.
Lewin R. A. (1977): Prochloron, type genus of the Prochlorophyta. – Phycologia 1: 217.
Li R., Carmichael W. W., Liu Y. & Watanabe M. M. (2000a): Taxonomic re-evaluation of Aphanizomenon flos-
aquae NH-5 based on morphology and 16S rRNA gene sequences. – Hydrobiologia 438: 99–105.
Li R., Carmichael W. W. & Pereira P. (2003): Morphological and 16S rRNA gene evidence for reclassification of
the paralytic shellfish toxin producing Aphanizomenon flos-aquae LMECYA31 as Aphanizomenon
issatschenkoi (Cyanophyceae). – J. Phycol. 39: 814–818.
Li R., Watanabe M. & Watanabe M. M. (2000b): Taxonomic studies pf planktic species of Anabaena based on
morphological characteristics in cultured strains. – Hydrobiologia 438: 117–138.
Li R., Wilhelm S. W., Carmichael W. W. & Watanabe M. M. (2008): Polyphasic characterization of water bloom
forming Raphidiopsis species (cyanobacteria) from central China. – Harmful Algae 7: 146–153.
Lin S., Wu Z. X., Yu G. L., Zhu M. L., Yu B. S. & Li R. H. (2010): Genetic diversity and molecular phylogeny of
Planktothrix (Oscillatoriales, cyanobacteria) strains from China. – Harmful Algae 9: 87–97.
*Litvaitis M. K. (2002): A molecular test of cyanobacterial phylogeny: inferences from constraint analyses. –
Hydrobiologia 468: 135–145.
Loza V., Berrendero E., Perona E. & Mateo P. (2013): Polyphasic characterization of benthic cyanobacterial
diversity from biofilms of the Guadarrama river (Spain): morphological, molecular, and ecological
approaches. – J. Phycol. 49: 282–297.
Lukešová A., Johansen J. R., Martin M. P. & Casamatta D. A. (2009): Aulosira bohemensis sp. nov.: further
phylogenetic uncertainty at the base of the Nostocales (Cyanobacteria). – Phycologia 48: 118–129.
Lundgren P., Janson S., Jonasson S., Singer A. & Bergman B. (2005): Unveiling of novel radiations within
Trichodesmium cluster by hetR gene sequence analysis. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 71: 190–196.
*Lyra C., Suomalainen S., Gugger M., Vezie C., Sundman P., Paulin L. & Sivonen K. (2001): Molecular charac-
terization of planktic cyanobacteria of Anabaena, Aphanizomenon, Microcystis and Planktothrix genera. –
Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51: 513–526.
Manen J. F. & Falquet J. (2002): The cpcB-cpcA locus as a tool for the genetic characterization of the genus
Arthrospira (Cyanobacteria): evidence for horizontal transfer. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52: 861–867.
Mareš J. & Hauer T. (2013): Polyphasic study of the coccoid cyanobacterial genera Gloeothece and Cyanothece.
– In: Book of abstracts, 19th Symposium of the International Society for Cyanophyte Research, p. 46, Cleve-
land, Ohio.
Mareš J., Hauer T., Komárek J. & Compére P. (2013a): Proposal to conserve the name Gloeothece
(Cyanophyceae) with a conserved type. – Taxon 62: 1056.
Mareš J., Hrouzek P., Kaňa R., Ventura S., Strunecký O. & Komárek J. (2013b): The primitive thylakoid-less
cyanobacterium Gloeobacter is a common rock-dwelling organism. – PLOs One 8: e66323.
Mareš J., Kaštovký J., McGregor G. & Komárek J. (2008): The little known pseudofilamentous cyanobacterium
Wolskyella. – Nova Hedwigia 87: 221–230.
Margheri M. C., Ventura S., Kaštovský J. & Komárek J. (2008): The taxonomic validation of the cyanobacterial
genus Halothece. – Phycologia 47: 477–486.
Marquardt J. & Palinska K. A. (2007): Genotypic and phenotypic diversity of cyanobacteria assigned to the genus
Phormidium (Oscillatoriales) from different habitats and geographical sites. – Arch. Microbiol. 187:
397–413.
McNeill J., Barrie F. R., Buck W. R., Demoulin V., Greuter W., Hawksworth D. L., Herendeen P. S., Knapp S.,
Marhold K., Prado J., Prudhomme Van Reine W. F., Smith G. F., Wiersema J. H. & Turland N. J. (2012): Inter-
national Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code). Adopted by the Eighteenth
International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011. – Regnum Vegetabile 154, A.R.G.
Gantner Verlag KG.
Miller M. A., Pfeiffer W. & Schwartz T. (2012): The CIPRES science gateway: enabling high-impact science for
phylogenetics researchers with limited resources. – In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Extreme
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 327

Science and Engineering Discovery Environment: Bridging from the eXtreme to the campus and beyond, p.
1–8, ACM, Chicago, Illinois.
Mitra A. K. & Pandey D. C. (1967): On a new genus of the blue-green alga Chlorogloeopsis with remarks on the
heterocysts in the alga. – Phycos 5: 106–114.
Miyashita H., Ikemoto H., Kurano N., Miyachi S. & Chihara M. (2003): Acaryochloris marina gen. et sp. nov.
(Cyanobacteria), an oxygenic photosynthetic prokaryote containing chl d as a major pigment. – J. Phycol. 39:
1247–1253.
Moro I., Rascio N., La Rocca N., Sciuto K., Albertano P., Bruno L. & Andreoli C. (2010): Polyphasic character-
ization of a thermo-tolerant filamentous cyanobacterium isolated from the Euganean thermal muds (Padua,
Italy). – Eur. J. Phycol. 45: 143–154.
Moustaka-Gouni M., Kormas K. A., Polykarpou P., Gkelis S., Bobori D. C. & Vardaka E. (2010): Polyphasic
evaluation of Aphanizomenon issatschenkoi and Raphidiopsis mediterranea in a Mediterranean lake. – J.
Plankt. Res. 32: 927–936.
Moustaka-Gouni M., Kormas K. A., Vardaka E., Katsiapi M. & Gkelis S. (2009): Raphidiopsis mediterranea
Skuja represents non-heterocytous life-cycle stages of Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii (Woloszynska)
Seenayya et Subba Raju in Lake Kastoria (Greece), its type locality: evidence by morphological and phylo-
genetic analysis. – Harmful Algae 8: 864–872.
Mühlsteinová R., Johansen J. R., Pietrasiak N. & Martin M. P. (2014a): Polyphasic characterization of
Kastovskya adunca gen. nov. et comb. nov. (Cyanobacteria: Oscillatoriales), from desert soils of the
Atacama Desert, Chile. – Phytotaxa 163: 216–228.
Mühlsteinová R., Johansen J. R., Pietrasiak N., Martin M. P. & Osorio-Santos K. (2014b): Polyphasic character-
ization of Trichocoleus desertorum sp. nov. (Pseudanabaenales, Cyanobacteria) from desert soils and phylo-
genetic placement of the genus Trichocoleus. – Phytotaxa 163: 241–261.
Munchhoff J., Hirose E., Maruyama T., Sunairi M., Burns B. P. & Neilan B. A. (2007): Host specificity and
phylogeography of the prochlorophyte Prochloron sp., an obligate symbiont in didemnid ascidians. – Env.
Microbiol. 9: 890–899.
*Nadeau T. L., Milbrandt E. C. & Castenholz R. W. (2001): Evolutionary relationships of cultivated Antarctic
oscillatorians (Cyanobacteria). – J. Phycol. 37: 650–654.
Nguyen L. T. T., Cronberg G., Moestrup O. & Daugbjerg N. (2013): Annamia toxica gen. et sp. nov., a new fresh-
water cyanobacterium from Vietnam that produces microcystins: ultrastructure, toxicity and molecular
phylogenetics. – Phycologia 52: 25–36.
Niiyama Y., Tuji A. & Tsujimura S. (2011): Umezakia natans M.WATAN. does not belong to Stigonemataceae
but to Nostocaceae. – Fottea 11: 163–169.
*Nixon K. C. & Wheeler Q. D. (1990): An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. – Cladistics 6:
211–223.
Novis P. M. & Visnovsky G. (2011): Novel alpine algae from New Zealand: Cyanobacteria. – Phytotaxa 22:
1–24.
Nübel U., Garcia-Pichel F. & Muyzer G. (2000): The halotolerance and phylogeny of cyanobacteria with tightly
coiled trichomes (Spirulina Turpin) and the description of Halospirulina tapeticola gen. nov., sp. nov. – Int. J.
Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 50: 1265–1277.
Obenlünenschloss J. (1991): Biologie und Ökologie von drei rezenten Süsswasser Rivularien (Cyanobakterien).
– Göttingen Arb. Geol. Paläontol. 50: 1–86.
Orcutt K. M., Rasmussen U., Webb E. A., Waterbury J. B., Gundersen K. & Bergman B. (2002): Characterization
of Trichodesmium spp. by genetic techniques. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 68: 2236–2245.
Otsuka S., Suda S., Li R. H., Watanabe M., Oyaizu H., Matsumoto S. & Watanabe M. M. (1999): Phylogenetic
relationships between toxic and non-toxic strains of the genus Microcystis based on 16S to 23S internal tran-
scribed spacer sequence. – FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 172: 15–21.
Otsuka S., Suda S., Shibata S., Oyaizu H., Matsumoto S. & Watanabe M. M. (2001): A proposal for the unifica-
tion of five species of the cyanobacterial genus Microcystis Kützing ex Lemmermann 1907 under the rules of
the Bacteriological Code. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51: 873–879.
Palenik B. (2001): Chromatic adaptation in marine Synechococcus strains. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 67: 991–994.
Palinska K., Liesack W., Rhiel E. & Krumbein W. E. (1996): Phenotype variability of identical genotypes: the
need for a combined approach in cyanobacterial taxonomy demonstrated on Merismopedia-like isolates. –
Arch. Microbiol. 166: 224–233.
Palinska K. A. & Marquardt J. (2008): Genotypic and phenotypic analysis of strains assigned to the widespread
cyanobacterial morphospecies Phormidium autumnale (Oscillatoriales). – Arch. Microbiol. 189: 325–335.
328 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

*Papke R. T., Ramsing N. B., Bateson M. M. & Ward D. M. (2003): Geographical isolation in hot spring
cyanobacteria. – Env. Microbiol. 5: 650–659.
Perkerson R. B., Johansen J. R., Kováčik L., Brand J., Kaštovský J. & Casamatta D. A. (2011): A unique
pseudanabaenalean (Cyanobacteria) genus Nodosilinea gen. nov. based on morphological and molecular
data. – J. Phycol. 47: 1397–1412.
Perkerson R. B., Perkerson A. E. & Casamatta D. A. (2010): Phylogenetic examination of the cyanobacterial gen-
era Geitlerinema and Limnothrix (Pseudanabaenaceae) using 16S rDNA gene sequence data. – Algol. Stud.
134: 1–16.
Prescott G. W. (1962): Algae of the western Great Lakes area. – Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa.
Rajaniemi P., Hrouzek P., Kaštovská K., Willame R., Rantala A., Hoffmann L., Komárek J. & Sivonen K.
(2005a): Phylogenetic and morphological evaluation of the genera Anabaena. Aphanizomenon, Trichormus
and Nostoc (Nostocales, Cyanobacteria). – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 55: 11–26.
Rajaniemi P., Komárek J., Hrouzek P., Willame R., Kaštovská K., Hoffmann L. & Sivonen K. (2005b): Taxo-
nomic consequences from the combined molecular and phenotype evaluation of selected Anabaena and
Aphanizomenon strains. – Algol. Stud. 117: 371–391.
Rajaniemi-Wacklin P., Rantala A., Mugnai M. A., Turicchia S., Ventura S., Komárková J., Lepistö L. & Sivonen
K. (2006): Correspondence between phylogeny and morphology of Snowella spp. and Woronichinia
naegeliana, Cyanobacteria, commonly occurring in lakes. – J. Phycol. 42: 226–232.
*Ramirez-Reinat E. L. & Garcia-Pichel F. (2012): Characterization of a marine Cyanobacterium that bores into
carbonates and the redescription of the genus Mastigocoleus. – J. Phycol. 48: 740–749.
Ramos V., Seabra R., Brito A., Santos A., Santos C. L., Lopo M., Moradas-Ferreira P., Vasconcelos V. &
Tamagnini P. (2010): Characterization of an intertidal cyanobacterium that constitutes a separate clade
together with thermophilic strains. – Eur. J. Phycol. 45: 394–403.
Řeháková K., Johansen J. R., Casamatta D. A., Xueson L. &Vincent J. (2007): Morphological and molecular
characterization of selected desert soil cyanobacteria: three species new to science including Mojavia pulchra
gen. et sp. nov. – Phycologia 46: 481–502.
Řeháková K., Mareš J., Lukešová A., Zapomělová E., Bernardová K. & Hrouzek P. (2014): Nodularia
(Cyanobacteria, Nostocaceae): a phylogenetically uniform genus with variable phenotypes. – Phytotaxa 172:
235–246.
*Richert L., Golubić S., Le Guédés R., Hervé A. & Payri C. (2006): Cyanobacterial populations that build
‘kopara’ microbial mats in Rangiroa, Tuamotu Archipelago, French Polynesia. – Eur. J. Phycol. 41: 259–279.
Rippka R. & Cohen-Bazire G. (1983): The Cyanobacteriales: a legitimate order based on the type strain
Cyanobacterium stanieri? –Ann. Microbiol. 134B: 21–36.
Rippka R., Deruelles J., Waterbury J. B., Herdman M. R. & Stanier R. Y. (1979): Generic assignments, straim his-
tories and properties of pure cultures of Cyanobacteria. – J. Gen. Microbiol. 111: 1–61.
Rippka R., Waterbury J. & Cohen-Bazire G. (1974): Cyanobacterium which lacks thylakoids. – Arch. Microbiol.
100: 419–436.
Robertson B. R., Tezuka N. & Watanabe M. M. (2001): Phylogenetic analyses of Synechococcus strains
(cyanobacteria) using sequences of 16S rDNA and part of the phycocyanin operon reveal multiple evolution-
ary lines and reflect, phycobilin content. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51: 861–871.
Rocap G., Larimer F. W., Lamerdin J., Malfatti S., Chain P., Ahlgren N. A., Arellano A., Coleman M., Hauser L.,
Hess W. R., Johnson Z. I., Land M., Lindell D., Post A. F., Regala W., Shah M., Shaw S. L., Steglich C.,
Sullivan M. B., Ting C. S., Tolonen A., Webb E. A., Zinser E. R. & Chisholm S. W. (2003): Genome diver-
gence in two Prochlorococcus ecotypes reflects oceanic niche differentiation. – Nature 424: 1042–1047.
Roldán M., Ramirez M., del Campo J., Hernández-Mariné M. & Komárek J. (2013): Chalicogloea cavernicola
gen. nov., sp nov (Chroococcales, Cyanobacteria), from low-light aerophytic environments: combined
molecular, phenotypic and ecological criteria. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 63: 2326–2333.
*Rudi K., Skulberg O. M. & Jakobsen K. S. (1998): Evolution of cyanobacteria by exchange of genetic material
among phyletically related strains. – J. Bacteriol. 180: 3453–3561.
*Rueckert A., Wood S. A. & Cary C. (2007): Development and field assessment of a quantiative PCR for the
detection and enumeration of the noxious bloom-former Anabaena planktonica. – Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth-
ods 5: 474–483.
Sant’Anna C. L., Azevedo T. M. P., Kaštovský J. & Komárek J. (2010): Two form-genera of aerophytic
heterocytous cyanobacteria from Brasilian rainy forest “Mata Atlântica”. – Fottea 10: 217–228.
Sant’Anna C. L., Kaštovský J., Hentschke G. S. & Komárek J. (2013): Phenotypic studies on terrestrial
stigonematacean Cyanobacteria from the Atlantic Rainforest, Săo Paulo State, Brazil. – Phytotaxa 89: 1–23.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 329

Schirrmeister B. E., Antonelli A. & Bagheri H. C. (2011): The origin of multicellularity in cyanobacteria. – BMC
Evol. Biol. 11: 45.
Schopf J. W. (1974): The development and diversification of Precambrian life. – Origin of Life 5: 119–135.
Schuurmans R. M., Matthijs H. C. D., Stall L. J. & Hellingwerf K. J. (2014): Cyanobacterial cellulose synthesis in
the light of the photanol concept. – In: Sharma N. H., Rai A. K. & Stall L. J. (eds), Cyanobacteria: an eco-
nomic perspective, p. 181–195, Wiley Blackwell.
Sciuto K., Andreoli C., Rascio N., La Rocca N. & Moro I. (2012): Polyphasic approach and typification of
selected Phormidium strains (Cyanobacteria). – Cladistics 28: 357–374.
Seo P. S. & Yokota A. (2003): The phylogenetic relationships of cyanobacteria inferred from 16S rRNA, gyrB,
rpoC1 and rpoD1 gene sequences. – J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 49: 191–203.
Shih P. M., Wu D., Latifi A., Axen S. D., Fewer D. P., Talla E., Calteau A., Cai F., Tandeau de Marsac N., Rippka
R., Herdman M., Sivonen K., Coursin T., Laurent T., Goodwin L., Nolan M., Davenport K. W., Han C. S.,
Rubin E. M., Eisen J. A., Woyke T., Gugger M. & Kerfeld C. A. (2013): Improving the coverage of the
cyanobacterial phylum using diversity-driven genome sequencing. – Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
110:1053–1058.
Siegesmund M., Johansen J. R., Karsten U. & Friedl T. (2008): Coleofasciculus gen. nov. (Cyanobacteria): mor-
phological and molecular criteria for revision of the genus Microcoleus Gomont. – J. Phycol. 44: 1572–1585.
Sihvonen L. M., Lyra C., Fewer D. P., Rajaniemi-Wacklin P., Lehtimaki J. M., Wahlsten M. & Sivonen K. (2007):
Strains of the cyanobacterial genera Calothrix and Rivularia isolated from the Baltic Sea display cryptic
diversity and are distantly related to Gloeotrichia and Tolypothrix. – FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 61: 74–84.
Six C., Thomas J. C., Garczarek L., Ostrowski M., Dufresne A., Blot N., Scanlan D. J. & Partensky F. (2007):
Diversity and evolution of pohycobilizomes in marine Synechococcus spp.: a comparative genomic study. –
Genome Biology 8: R259.
*Stackebrandt E. (2002): From species definition to species concept: population genetics is going to influence the
systematics of Prokaryotes. – WFCC Newsletter 35: 1–4.
Stackebrandt E. & Ebers J. (2006): Taxonomic parameters revisited: tarnished gold standards. – Microbiol. Today
4: 152–155.
Stackebrandt E. & Goebel B. M. (1994): Taxonomic note: a for place for DNA-DNA reassociationand 16S rRNA
sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 44:
846–849.
Stamatakis A. (2006): RAxML-VI-HPC: Maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of
taxa and mixed models. – Bioinformatics 22: 2688–2690.
Starmach K. (1966): Cyanophyta – sinice, Glaucophyta – glaukofity. Vol. 2. – In: Flora słodkowodna Polski
[Freshwater microflora of Poland], Panstowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw.
*Stiller J. W. & McClanahan A. (2005): Phyto-specific 16S rDNA PCR primers for recovering algal and plant
sequences from mixed samples. – Molec. Ecol. Notes 5: 1–3.
*Strunecký O., Elster J. & Komárek J. (2010): Phylogenetic relationships between geographically separate
Phormidium cyanobacteria: is there a link between north and south polar regions? – Polar Biol. 33:
1419–1428.
Strunecký O., Elster J. & Komárek J. (2011): Taxonomic revision of the freshwater cyanobacterium
„Phormidium“ murrayi = Wilmottia murrayi. – Fottea 11: 57–71.
Strunecký O., Komárek J., Johansen J. R., Lukešová A. & Elster J. (2013): Molecular and morphological criteria
for revision of the genus Microcoleus (Oscillatoriales, Cyanobacteria). – J. Phycol. 49: 1167–1180.
Strunecký O., Komárek J. & Šmarda J. (2014): Kamptonema (Microcoleaceae, Cyanobacteria), a new genus
derived from the polyphyletic Phormidium according to combined molecular and cytomorphological. –
Preslia 86: 193–207.
Stüken A., Campbell R. J., Quesada A., Sukenik A., Dadheech P. K. & Wiedner C. (2009): Genetic and
morphologic characterization of four putative cylindrospermopsin producing species of the cyanobacterial
genera Anabaena and Aphanizomenon. – J. Plankton Res. 31: 465–480.
Suda S., Watanabe M. M., Otsuka S., Mahakahant A., Yongmanitchai W., Nopartnaraporn N., Liu Y. & Day J. G.
(2002): Taxonomic revision of water-bloom-forming species of oscillatorioid cyanobacteria. – Int. J. Syst.
Evol. Microbiol. 52: 1577–1595.
*Swingley W. D., Blankenship R. E. & Raymond J. (2008): Insights into cyanobacterial evolution from compara-
tive genomics. – In: Herrero A. & Flores E. (eds), The cyanobacteria: molecular biology, genomics and evolu-
tion, p. 21–43, Caister Academic Press, Norfolk.
*Tang E. P. Y. & Vincent W. F. (1999): Strategies of thermal adaptation by high-latitude cyanobacteria. – New
Phytol. 142: 315–323.
330 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

*Taton A., Grubisic S., Balthasart P., Hodgson D. A., Laybourn-Parry J. &Wilmotte A. (2006a): Biogeographical
distribution and ecological ranges of benthic cyanobacteria in East Antarctic lakes. – FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.
57: 272–289.
*Taton A., Grubisic S., Brambilla E., De Wit R. &Wilmotte A. (2003): Cyanobacterial diversity in natural and
artificial microbial mats of Lake Fryxell (McMurdo dry valleys, Antarctica): a morphological and molecular
approach. – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 69: 5157–5169.
*Taton A., Grubisic S., Ertz D., Hodgson D. A., Picardi R., Biondi N., Tredici M., Mainini M., Losi D., Marinelli
F. & Wilmotte A. (2006b): Polyphasic study of antarctic cyanobacterial strains. – J. Phycol. 42: 1257–1270.
Taton A., Wilmotte A., Šmarda J., Elster J. & Komárek J. (2011): Plectolyngbya hodgsonii: a novel filamentous
cyanobacterium from Antarctic lakes. – Polar Biol. 34: 181–191.
Thacker R. W. & Paul V. J. (2004): Morphological, chemical and genetic diversity of tropical marine
cyanobacteria Lyngbya spp. and Symploca spp. (Oscillatoriales). – Appl. Env. Microbiol. 70: 3305–3312.
Thomazeau S., Houdan-Fourmont A., Coute A., Duval C., Couloux A., Rousseau F. & Bernard C. (2010): The
contribution of sub-Saharan African strains to the phylogeny of cyanobacteria: focusing on the Nostocaceae
family (Nostocales, Cyanobacteria). – J. Phycol. 46: 564–579.
Thu N. K., Tanabe Y., Yoshida M., Matsuura H. & Watanabe M. M. (2012): Aerosakkonema funiforme gen. et sp
nov (Oscillatoriales), a new gas-vacuolated oscillatorioid cyanobacterium isolated from a mesotrophic reser-
voir. – Phycologia 51: 672–683.
*Tomitani A., Knoll A. H., Cavanaugh C. M. & Ohno T. (2006): The evolutionary diversification of
cyanobacteria: molecular-phylogenetic and paleontological perspectives. – P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:
5442–5447.
Turicchia S., Ventura S., Komárková J. & Komárek J. (2009): Taxonomic evaluation of cyanobacterial microflora
from alkaline marshes of northern Belize. 2. Diversity of oscillatorialean genera. – Nova Hedwigia 89:
165–200.
Turner S. (1997): Molecular systematics of oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria. – Plant Syst. Evol. 11: 53–86.
Urbach E., Robertson D. L. & Chisholm S. W. (1992): Multiple evolutionary origins of prochlorophytes within
the cyanobacterial radiation. – Nature 355: 267–270.
Vaccarino M. A. & Johansen J. R. (2011): Scytonematopsis contorta sp. nov. (Nostocales), a new species from the
Hawaiian islands. – Fottea 11: 149–161.
Vaccarino M. A. & Johansen J. R. (2012): Brasilonema angustatum sp. nov. (Nostocales), a new filamentous
cyanobacterial species from Hawaian Islands. – J. Phycol. 48: 1178 –1186.
van Gremberghe I., Leliaert F., Mergay J., Vanormelingen P., Van der Gucht K., Debeer A.-E., Lacerot G., De
Meester L. & Vyverman W. (2011): Lack of phylogeographic structure in the freshwater cyanobacterium
Microcystis aeruginosa suggests global dispersal. – PLoS One 6: 1–9.
Wacklin P., Hoffmann L. & Komárek J. (2009): Nomenclatural validation fo the genetically revised
cyanobacterial genus Dolichospermum (Ralfs ex Bornet et Flahault) comb. nova. – Fottea 9: 59–64.
Ward D. M. (2006): Microbial diversity in natural environments: focusing on fundamental questions. – Antonie
van Leewenhoek 90: 309–324.
Waterbury J. B., Watson S. W., Guillard R. R. L. & Brand L. E. (1979): Widespread occurrence of a unicellular,
marine, planktonic cyanobacterium. – Nature 277: 293–294.
*Waterbury J. B., Watson S. W. & Valois F. W. (1988): Temporal separation of photosynthesis and dinitrogen fix-
ation in the marine unicellular cyanobacterium Erythrosphaera marina. – Eos 69: 1089.
Wayne L. G., Brenner D. J., Colwell R. R., Grimont P. A. D., Kandler O., Krichevsky M. I., Moore L. H., Moore
W. E. C., Murray R. G. E., Stackebrandt E., Starr M. P. & Truper H. G. (1987): Report of the ad hoc committee
on reconciliation of approaches to bacterial systematics. – Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 37: 463–464.
Webb E. A., Ehrenreich I. M., Brown S. L., Valois F. W. & Waterbury J. B. (2008): Phenotypic and genotypic
characterization of multiple strains of the diazotrophic cyanobacterium, Crocosphaera watsonii, isolated
from the open ocean. – Env. Microbiol. 11: 338–348.
Whitton B. A. & Mateo P. (2012): Rivulariaceae. – In: Whitton B. A. (ed.), Ecology of Cyanobacteria II: their
diversity in space and time, p. 561–591, Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London.
*Wilde S.B., Johansen J.R., Wilde H.D., Jiang P., Bartelme B.A. & Haynie R.S. (2014): Aetokthonos hydrillicola
gen. et sp. nov.: epiphytic cyanobacteria associated with invazive aquatic plants and implicated in bird deaths
from avian vacuolar myelinopathy. – Phytotaxa (in press).
Willame R., Boutte C., Grubisić S., Wilmotte A., Komárek J. & Hoffmann L. (2006): Morphological and molecu-
lar characterisation of planktonic cyanobacteria from Belgium and Luxembourg. – J. Phycol. 42: 1312–1332.
Wilmotte A. (1994): Molecular evolution and taxonomy of the cyanobacteria. – In: Bryant D. A. (ed.), The molec-
ular biology of Cyanobacteria, p. 1–25, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.*Wilmotte A. & Golubić S.
Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 331

(1991): Morphological and genetic criteria in the taxonomy of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria. – Algol. Stud. 64:
1–24.
*Wilmotte A. & Golubic S. (1991): Morphological and genetic criteria in the taxonomy of Cyanophyta/Cyano-
bacteria. – Algol. Stud. 64: 1-24.
Wu M. & Eisen J. A. (2008): A simple, fast, and accurate method of phylogenomic inference. – Genome Biology
9: R151.
*Yang Y., Qin S., Zhao F., Chi X. & Zhang X. (2007): Comparison of envelope-related genes in unicellular and
filamentous cyanobacteria. – Comp. Funct. Genomics 2007: 25751.
Zammit G., Billi D. & Albertano P. (2012): The subaerophytic cyanobacterium Oculatella subterranea
(Oscillatoriales, Cyanophyceae) gen. et sp. nov.: a cytomorphological and molecular description. – Eur. J.
Phycol. 47: 341–354.
Zapomělová E., Jezberová J., Hrouzek P., Hisem D., Řeháková K. & Komárková J. (2009): Polyphasic character-
ization of three strains of Anabaena reniformis and Aphanizomenon aphanizomenoides (cyanobacteria) and
their reclassification to Sphaerospermum gen. nov (incl. Anabaena kisseleviana). – J. Phycol. 45: 1363–1373.
Zapomělová E., Jezberová J., Hrouzek P., Hisem D., Řeháková K. & Komárková J. (2010): Polyphasic character-
ization of three strains of Anabaena reniformis and Aphanizomenon aphanizomenoides (cyanobacteria) and
their reclassification to Sphaerospermum gen. nov (incl. Anabaena kisseleviana). – J. Phycol. 46: 415.
Zapomělová E., Mareš J., Lukešová A., Skácelová O., Řeháková K. & Kust A. (2013): Extensive polyphyly of
non-gas-vacuolate Anabaena species (Nostocales, Cyanobacteria) – a challenge for modern cyanobacterial
taxonomy. – In: Book of abstracts, 19th Symposium of the International Society for Cyanophyte Research, p.
51, Cleveland, Ohio.
Zapomělová E., Skácelová O., Pumann P., Kopp R. & Janeček E. (2012): Biogeographically interesting plank-
tonic Nostocales (Cyanobacteria) in the Czech Republic and their polyphasic evaluation resulting in taxo-
nomic revisions of Anabaena bergii Ostenfeld 1908 Chrysosporum gen. nov.) and A. tenericaulis Nygaard
1949 (Dolichospermum tenericaule comb. nova). – Hydrobiologia 698: 353–365.
Zehr J. P., Waterbury J. B., Turner P. J., Montoya J. P., Omoregie E., Steward G. F., Hausen A. & Karl D. M.
(2001): Unicellular cyanobacteria fix N2 in the subtropical North Pacific Ocean. – Nature 412: 635–638.
Zhu M., Yu G., Li X., Tan W. & Li R. (2012): Taxonomic and phylogenetic evaluation of Limnothrix strains
(Oscillatoriales, Cyanobacteria) by adding Limnothrix planktonica strains isolated from central China. –
Hydrobiologia 698: 367–374.

Received 30 June 2014

Revision received 6 October 2014
Accepted 7 October 2014
 332 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Appendix 1. – Names of the cyanobacterial genera that had been published by the end of 2013 (several invalidly
published). 1 – genera supported by a molecular phylogeny, including a 16S rRNA gene sequence of the type spe-
cies; 2 – genera, from which only one or a few species were studied using molecular methods and for which there
is no 16S rRNA gene data for the type species; 3 – genera studied using molecular methods and found to be
poly/paraphyletic or with no clear relationship with other genera; 4 – genera not yet studied using molecular
methods; 5 – genera not yet validly described; * genera for which there is a 16S rRNA sequence for the type mate-
rial; [?] genera, problematic from the taxonomic point of view.
Taxon status Taxon status
Gloeobacterales Acaryochloridaceae
Gloeobacteraceae Acaryochloris Miyashita et Chihara 2003 1*
Gloeobacter Rippka et al. 1974 ex Mareš et al. 1* Chamaesiphonaceae
2013
Chamaesiphon A. Braun et Grunow 1865 3
Synechococcales Chamaesiphonopsis Fritsch 1929 4
Clastidium Kirchner 1880 4
Synechococcaceae
Cyanophanon Geitler 1956 4
Anathece Komárek et al. 2011 1.3 Geitleribactron Komárek 1975 2
Bacularia Borzě 1905 4
Romeriaceae
Cyanobium Rippka et Cohen-Bazire 1983 1, 3
Cyanocatena Hindák 1975 4 Cyanocatenula Joosten 2006 4
Cyanodictyon Pascher 1914 3 Romeria Koczwara in Geitler 1932 2
Cyanogranis Hindák 1982 4 Tubiella Hollerbach 1935 4, [?]
Cyanonephron Hickel 1985 4 Wolskyella Claus 1963 4
Cyanothamnos Cronberg 1991 4
Pseudanabaenaceae
Epigloeosphaera Komárková 1991 4
Lemmermanniella Geitler 1942 4 Arthronema Komárek et Lukavský 1988 1
Lithococcus Ercegović 1925 4, [?] Jaaginema Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 1.3
Lithomyxa Howe 1931 4, [?] Komvophoron subg. Alyssophoron Anagnostidis 5
Rhabdoderma Schmidle et Lauterborn 1900 4 et Komárek 1988
Rhabdogloea Schröder 1917 4 Limnothrix Meffert 1988 1.3
Rhodostichus Geitler et Pascher 1931 4, [?] Prochlorothrix Burger-Wiersma et al. 1989 1
Synechococcus Nägeli 1849 1.3 Pseudanabaena Lauterborn 1915 1.3
Thermosynechococcus Katoh et al. 2001 1*, 5 Yonedaella Umezaki 1962 4
Merismopediaceae Leptolyngbyaceae
Aphanocapsa Nägeli 1849 3 Haloleptolyngbya Dadheech et al. 2012 1*
Coccopedia Troickaja 1922 4, [?] Halomicronema Abed et al. 2002 1*
Cyanotetras Hindák 1988 4, [?] Leibleinia (Gomont) Hoffmann 1985 4
Eucapsis Clements et Shantz 1909 3 Leptolyngbya Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 1.3
Limnococcus Komárková et al. 2010 1* Myxocorys Petrasiak et al. 2015 provis. 1*
Mantellum Dangeard 1941 4 Neosynechococcus Dvořák et al. 2013 1*
Merismopedia Meyen 1839 1.3 Nodosilinea Perkerson et Casamatta 2011 1*
Microcrocis Richter 1882 4 Oculatella Zammit et al. 2012 1*
Pannus Hickel 1991 4 Phormidesmis Turicchia et al. 2009 1*
Synechocystis Sauvageau 1892 1.3 Planktolyngbya Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 1
Plectolyngbya Taton et al. 2011 1*
Prochloraceae
Stenomitos Miscoe et Johansen 2015 provis. 1*
Prochlorococcus Chisholm et al. 1992 1*,3 Trichocoleus Anagnostidis 2001 2
Prochloron Lewin 1977 1*,3 Trichotorquatus Petrasiak et Johansen 2015 provis. 1*,5
Coelosphaeriaceae Heteroleibleiniaceae
Coelomoron Buell 1938 4 Heteroleibleinia (Geitler) Hoffmann 1985 4
Coelosphaeriopsis Lemmermann 1900 4 Tapinothrix Sauvageau 1892 3
Coelosphaerium Nägeli 1849 2
Schizotrichaceae
Siphonosphaera Hindák 1988 4
Snowella Elenkin 1938 1 Dasygloea Thwaites ex Gomont 1892 4
Woronichinia Elenkin 1933 1 Schizothrix Kützing ex Gomont 1892 2
 Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 333

Taxon status Taxon status

Spirulinales Stichosiphonaceae
Spirulinaceae Godlewskia Janczewski 1883 5
Stichosiphon Geitler 1932 4
Glaucospira Lagerheim 1892 4, [?]
Halospirulina Nübel et al. 2000 1* Entophysalidaceae
Spirulina Turpin ex Gomont 1892 3
Chlorogloea Wille 1900 2, (4)
Chroococcales Cyanoarbor Wang 1989 4
Cyanodermatium Geitler 1933 4
Microcystaceae
Entophysalis Kützing 1843 4
Cyanocomperia Hindák 2002 4 Lithocapsa Ercegović 1925 4
Microcystis Kützing ex Lemmermann 1907 1 Paracapsa Naumann 1924 4, [?]
Planctocyanocapsa Hindák 2002 4 Placoma Schousboe ex Bornet et Thuret 1876 4
Radiocystis Skuja 1948 2 Siphononema Geitler 1925 4
Sphaerocavum Azevedo et Sant´Anna 2003 4
Pleurocapsales
Aphanothecaceae
Hydrococcaceae
Aphanothece Nägeli 1849 1
Dalmatella Ercegović 1929 4
Crocosphaera Zehr et al. 2001 1*, 5
Hormathonema Ercegović 1929 4
Cyanoaggregatum Werner et al. 2008 4
Hydrococcus Kützing 1833 4
Cyanogastrum Schiller 1956 4
Myxohyella Geitler 1925 4
Dzensia Voronichin 1929 4
Onkonema Geitler 1933 4
“Euhalothece” Garcia-Pichel 2000 provis. 1*, 5
Tryponema Ercegović 1929 4
Gloeothece Nägeli 1849 2
Halothece Margheri et al. 2008 1* Dermocarpellaceae
Hormothece Jao 1944 4
Cyanocystis Borzě 1882 2, (4)
Myxobactron Schmidle 1904 4
Dermocarpella Lemmermann 1907 2
Rippkaea Mareš et al. 2015 provis. 1*, 5
Stanieria Komárek et Anagnostidis 1986 1, 3
Rubidibacter Choi et al. 2008 1
Xenococcaceae
Cyanobacteriaceae
Xenococcus Thuret 1880 2, 3
Cyanobacterium Rippka et Cohen-Bazire 1983 1, 3
Xenotholos Gold-Morgan et al. 1994 4
Cyanothrichaceae
Hyellaceae
Johannesbaptistia DeToni 1934 2
Chamaecalyx Komárek et Anagnostidis 1986 4
Gomphosphaeriaceae Chroococcidium Geitler 1933 4
Chroococcopsis Geitler 1925 2
Beckia Richter 1882 4, [?]
Cyanoderma Weber van Bosse 1887 4
Gomphosphaeria Kützing 1836 4
Cyanosaccus Lukas et Golubić 1981 4
Chroococcaceae Ercegovicia DeToni 1936 4
Hyella Bornet et Flahault 1888 2
Asterocapsa Chu 1952 4
Myxosarcina Printz 1921 2
Chalicogloea Roldán et al. 2013 1
Pascherinema DeToni 1936 4, [?]
Chondrocystis Lemmermann 1899 4, [?]
Pleurocapsa Thuret in Hauck 1885 3
Chroogloeocystis Brown et al. 2005 1*
Podocapsa Ercegović 1931 4
Chroococcus Nägeli 1849 1
Radaisia Sauvageau 1895 4
Cyanokybus Schiller 1956 4
Solentia Ercegović 1927 2
Cyanosarcina Kováčik 1988 4
Cyanostylon Geitler 1928 4 Chroococcidiopsidales
Geminocystis Korelusová et al. 2009 1*
Chroococcidiopsidaceae
Gloeocapsa Kützing 1843 1, 3
Gloeocapsopsis Geitler ex Komárek 1993 1, 3 Chroococcidiopsis Geitler 1933 1, 3
Nephrococcus Li 1984 4
Oscillatoriales
Pseudocapsa Ercegović 1925 4
Pseudoncobyrsa Geitler 1925 4, [?] Cyanothecaceae
Cyanothece Komárek 1976 1
 334 Preslia 86: 295–335, 2014

Taxon status Taxon status

Borziaceae Katagnymene Lemmermann 1899 3, 4
Komvophoron Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 3
Borzia Cohn ex Gomont 1892 4
Starria Lang 1977 1*
Coleofasciculaceae
Nostocales
Anagnostidinema Strunecký et al. in prep. 1*, 5
Scytonemataceae
Coleofasciculus Siegesmund et al. 2008 1*
Desertifilum Dadheech et al. 2012 1* Brasilonema Fiore et al. 2007 1*
Geitlerinema Anagnostidis 1989 1, 3 Chakia Komárková et al. 2013 1*
Kastovskya Mühlsteinová et al. 2014 1* Kyrtuthrix Ercegović 1929 4
Roseofilum Casamatta et al. 2012 1* Ophiothrix Sant´Anna et al. 2010 4
Wilmottia Strunecký et al. 2011 1* Petalonema Berkeley ex Correns 1889 2
Scytonema Agardh ex Bornet et Flahault 1887 1, 3
Microcoleaceae
Scytonema sect. Myochrotes Bornet et Flahault 1887 5
Annamia Nguyen et al. 2013 1* Scytonematopsis Kiseleva 1930 2, 3
Arthrospira Stizenberger ex Gomont 1892 2
Symphyonemataceae
Hydrocoleum Kützing ex Gomont 1892 2, 3, [?]
Johanseninema Hašler et al. 2014 1* Adrianema DeToni 1936 4
Kamptonema Strunecký et al. 2014 1* Brachytrichia Zanardini ex Bornet 4
Lyngbyopsis Gardner 1927 4 et Flahault 1887
Microcoleus Desmazičres ex Gomont 1892 2 Herpyzonema Weber van Bosse 1913 4
Oxynema Chatchawan et al. 2012 1* Ifinoe Lamprinou et Pantazidou 2011 1*
Planktothricoides Suda et M. M. Watanabe 2002 1* Iyengariella Desikachary 1953 4
Planktothrix Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 1 Loriellopsis Hernandéz Mariné et Canals 2011 1*, [?]
Porphyrosiphon Kützing ex Gomont 1892 4 Mastigocladopsis Iyengar et Desikachary 1946 2
Proterendothrix W. et G.S.West 1897 4, [?] Parenchymorpha Tseng et Hua 1984 4
Pseudophormidium (Forti) 2 Symphyonema Jao 1944 2
Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 Symphyonemopsis Gugger et Hoffmann 2004 2, (3)
Pseudoscytonema Elenkin 1949 4 Voukiella Ercegović 1925 4
Sirocoleum Kützing ex Gomont 1892 4, [?]
Rivulariaceae
Symploca Kützing ex Gomont 1892 3
Symplocastrum (Gomont) Kirchner 1898 2 Calothrix Agardh ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 3
Trichodesmium Ehrenberg ex Gomont 1892 1, 3 Dichothrix Zanardini ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 (2), 4
Tychonema Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 1, 3 Gardnerula DeToni 1936 4
Isactis Thuret ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 4
Homoeotrichaceae
Microchaete Thuret ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 1, 3
Ammatoidea W. et G. S. West 1897 4 Rivularia C. A. Agardh ex Bornet 3
Homoeothrix (Thuret) Kirchner 1898 4 et Flahault 1886
Phormidiochaete Komárek in Anagnostidis 2001 4 Sacconema Borzě ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 4
Tildenia Kosinskaja 1926 4, [?]
Tolypothrichaceae
Oscillatoriaceae
Borzinema DeToni 1936 4
Aerosakkonema Thu et M. M. Watanabe 2012 1* Coleodesmium Borzě ex Geitler 1942 1.3
Blennothrix Kützing ex Anagnostidis 3 Dactylothamnos Fiore et al. 2013 provis. 1*,5
et Komárek 1988 Hassallia Berkeley ex Bornet et Flahault 1888 1.3
Limnoraphis Komárek et al. 2013 1* Rexia Casamatta et al. 2006 1* [?]
Lyngbya C. Agardh ex Gomont 1892 1, 3 Seguenzaea Borzě 1907 4
Moorea Engene et al. 2012 1* Spirirestis Flechtner et Johansen 2002 1*
Okeania Engene et al. 2013 1* Streptostemon Sant’Anna et al. 2010 4
Oscillatoria Vaucher ex Gomont 1892 1, 3 Tolypothrix Kützing ex Bornet et Flahault 1887 1, 3
Phormidium Kützing ex Gomont 1892 1, 3
Godleyaceae
Plectonema Thuret ex Gomont 1892 2
Polychlamydum W. et G.S.West 1897 4 Godleya Novis et Visnovsky 2011 1*
Toxopsis Lamprinou et al. 2012 1*
Gomontiellaceae
Chlorogloeopsidaceae
Crinalium Crow 1927 2
Gomontiella Teoderesco 1901 4 Chlorogloeopsis Mitra et Pandey 1967 1, 3
Hormoscilla Anagnostidis et Komárek 1988 2
 Komárek et al.: Taxonomic classification of cyanoprokaryotes 335

Taxon status Taxon status

Capsosiraceae Aphanizomenonaceae
Capsosira Kützing ex Bornet et Flahault 1887 2 Anabaenopsis (Wołoszyńska) Miller 1923 1, 3
Desmosiphon Borzě 1907 4 Aphanizomenon Morren ex Bornet 1, 3
Nematoplaca Geitler 1933 4 et Flahault 1888
Stauromatonema Frémy 1930 4 Chrysosporum Zapomělová et al. 2012 1*
Cuspidothrix Rajaniemi et al. 2005 1*
Stigonemataceae
Cyanospira Florenzano et al. 1985 1*
Cyanobotrys Hoffmann 1991 4 Cylindrospermopsis Seenayya 1
Doliocatella Geitler 1933 4 et Subba Raju 1972
Homoeoptyche Skuja 1944 4 Dolichospermum (Ralfs) Wacklin et al. 2009 1
Pulvinularia Borzě 1916 4 Nodularia Mertens in Jürgens ex Bornet 1, 3
Stigonema C. Agardh ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 2 et Flahault 1888
Raphidiopsis Fritsch et Rich 1929 1, 3, [?]
Hapalosiphonaceae
Sphaerospermopsis Zapomělová et al. 2010 1*
Aetokthonos Wilde et al. 2014 1 Umezakia M. Watanabe 1987 1
Albrightia Copeland 1936 4
Nostocaceae
Baradlaia Palik 1960 4, [?]
Brachytrichiopsis Jao 1944 4 Anabaena Bory ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 (1), 3
Chondrogloea Schmidle 1902 4 Camptylonemopsis Desikachary 1948 2
Colteronema Copeland 1936 4 Coleospermopsis Hauer et al. 2015 provis. 1*, 5
Fischerella (Bornet et Flahault) Gomont 1895 3 Cronbergia Komárek et al. 2010 1*
Fischerellopsis Fritsch 1932 4 Cyanocohniella Kaštovský et al. 2014 1*
Geitleria Friedmann 1955 4 Cylindrospermum Kützing ex Bornet (1), 2
Handeliella Skuja 1937 4 et Flahault 1888
Hapalosiphon Nägeli in Kützing ex Bornet 3 Desmonostoc Hrouzek et Ventura 2013 1*
et Flahault 1887 Goleter Miscoe et al. 2015 1 *, 5
Hyphomorpha Borzě 1916 4 Hydrocoryne Schwabe ex Bornet et Flahault 1888 1, 3
Leptopogon Borzě 1917 4 Isocystis Borzě ex Bornet et Flahault 1888 4
Letestuinema Frémy 1930 4 Macrospermum Komárek 2008 4
Loefgrenia Gomont 1896 4 Mojavia Řeháková et Johansen 2007 1*
Loriella Borzě 1892 4 Nostoc Vaucher ex Bornet & Flahault 1888 1, 3
Mastigocladus Cohn ex Kirchner 1898 1 Richelia J. Schmidt in Ostenfeld 1
Mastigocoleopsis Geitler 1925 4 et J. Schmidt 1901
Mastigocoleus Lagerheim ex Bornet 1 Spelaea Miscoe et al. 2013 provis. 1 *, 5
et Flahault 1887 Tolypothrichopsis Hauer et al. 2015 provis. 1 *, 5
Matteia Borzě 1907 4 Trichormus (Ralfs ex Bornet et Flahault) 1, 3
Nostochopsis Wood ex Bornet & Flahault 1886 3 Komárek et Anagnostidis 1989
Schmidleinema DeToni 1936 4, [?] Wollea Bornet et Flahault 1888 1, 3
Spelaeopogon Borzě 1917 4
Thalpophila Borzě 1907 4
Westiella Borzě 1907 4
Westiellopsis Janet 1941 1.3
Fortieaceae
Aulosira Kirchner ex Bornet et Flahault 1886 2
Calochaete Hauer et al. 2013 1*
Coleospermum Kirchner in Cohn 1878 3
Fortiea De-Toni 1936 2
Roholtiella Bohunická et al. 2015 1*, 5
Gloeotrichiaceae
“Calothrix” (with akinetes) 5
Gloeotrichia J. Agardh ex Bornet 3
et Flahault 1886