We tried to rephrase the paragraph by changing, deleting, or adding a few words as follows: “In this paper we study Archaea phylogeny across many phyla. This is in contrast with phylogeny of species in a narrow range of taxa, e.g., that of vertebrates (a subphylum) or human versus close relatives (a few genera). Accordingly, the phylogeny should be compared with taxonomy at large, or, as Cavalier-Smith (citing cavalier-smith 2002) put it, with “megaclassificaton” of prokaryotes. Although in taxonomy the description of a newly discovered organism necessarily starts from the lower ranks, higher rank assignments are often incomplete or lacking. At present the ranks above class are not covered by the Bacteriological Code. The number of plausible microbial phyla may reach hundreds and archaeal ones are among the less studied. According to the 16S rRNA analysis, the major archaeal classes and their subordinate orders have been more or less delineated. Therefore, in order to carry out the aforementioned cross verification we make emphasis on higher ranks such as phyla, classes, and orders. A study using 179 Archaea genomes should provide a framework for further study of lower ranks.”
This kind of research should be encouraged further because old taxonomic paradigms must be systematically reviewed based on new genomic data.