Again!
It just gets more exciting with every report.
Your comment would be more meaningful if "bacterium" was all one species, or even one genus. But that's not the case. Check out the following table:
| Name of Phylum | Number of Species | Number of Genera |
| Aquificae | 27 | 12 |
| Xenobacteria | 29 | 11 |
| Chrysogenetes | 1 | 1 |
| Thermomicrobia | 13 | 6 |
| Cyanobacteria | 78 | 62 |
| Chlorobia | 17 | 6 |
| Proteobacteria | 1644 | 366 |
| Firmicutes | 2474 | 255 |
| Planctomycetes etc. | 13 | 5 |
| Spirochaetes | 92 | 13 |
| Fibrobacter | 5 | 3 |
| Bacteroids | 130 | 20 |
| Flavobacteria | 72 | 15 |
| Sphingobacteria | 76 | 22 |
| Fusobacteria | 29 | 6 |
| Verrucomicrobia | 5 | 2 |
Your comment would be more meaningful if "bacterium" was all one species, or even one genus. But that's not the case. Check out the following table:
As you can see there is a great deal of latitude for change within "bacterium" -- such that analyses like the one reported here can easily demonstrate speciation (macroevolution) while still dealing with "bacteria."
. . . . .
So they're still bacteria?
Darn.
I was hoping for a dog this time. Sorry, I meant "dog." By putting the term in quotations marks I can pretend it's still a dog, but not still a dog. In fact, it can mean whatever I want it to mean.
It's a good thing that science is so perfected and precise that the mere insertion of punctuation can change the interpretation -- and possibly the real-life application -- of experimental results.
Of course, at one time black Africans were not humans, but were "humans." Same with Australian aboriginal peoples, Jews, unborn children, etc.
How handy is THAT?
Pardon me now while I go have my "breakfast" and then go to "work."
Have a great "day!"