Search

This fifth volume in the series The Plant Viruses, dealing with viruses with bipartite genomes, completes the coverage of viruses with isometric parti­ cles and genomes consisting of single-stranded, positive-sense RNA: viruses that have tripartite and monopartite genomes of this kind were dealt with in Volumes 1 and 3, respectively. How close are the affinities among the viruses within the groupings distinguished in this way? All those with tripartite genomes are considered to be sufficiently closely related to be included in the family Bromoviridae, whereas the monopartite-genome viruses covered in Volume 3 clearly are a much more diverse collection. Affinities among the viruses with bipartite genomes are considered in Chapter 1 of this volume, along with the possible origins, advantages, and disadvantages of these ge­ nomes. The conclusion reached from this assessment is that the bipartite­ genome viruses fall into four categories, those within each category having closer affinities with viruses not included in this book than with viruses in the other categories. No evidence was found that possession of a bipartite genome gives a virus overwhelming advantages over viruses of other sorts. More probably, any advantages are largely balanced by disadvantages, and bipartite genomes may be best considered simply as an alternative design for the hereditary material of a virus.

This volume of the series The Plant Viruses is devoted to viruses with rod-shaped particles belonging to the following four groups: the toba­ moviruses (named after tobacco mosaic virus), the tobraviruses (after to­ bacco rattle), the hordeiviruses (after the latin hordeum in honor of the type member barley stripe mosaic virus), and the not yet officially rec­ ognized furoviruses (fungus-transmitted rod-shaped viruses, Shirako and Brakke, 1984). At present these clusters of plant viruses are called groups instead of genera or families as is customary in other areas of virology. This pe­ culiarity of plant viral taxonomy (Matthews, 1982) is due to the fact that the current Plant Virus Subcommittee of the International Committee of Taxonomy of Viruses is deeply split on what to call the categories or ranks used in virus classification. Some plant virologists believe that the species concept cannot be applied to viruses because this concept, according to them, necessarily involves sexual reproduction and genetic isolation (Milne, 1984; Murant, 1985). This belief no doubt stems from the fact that these authors restrict the use of the term species to biological species. According to them, a collection of similar viral isolates and strains does constitute an individ­ ual virus, i. e., it is a taxonomy entity separate from other individual viruses.