Apparent discrepancies in the review “Avian host range of Chlamydophila spp. based on isolation, antigen detection and serology” by Kaleta, E.F. & Taday, E.M.A. (2003), Avian Pathology, 32, 435–462
Citing published reports and their own diagnostic data, Kaleta and Taday ( Citation 2003 ) ( https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450310001593613 ) reported that 469 domestic and free-living bird species were determined to be chlamydia-positive, based on isolation of the organism and antigen detection or on serological detection of circulating antibodies. However, I was unable to reconcile the designation of chlamydia-positive in some of the species listed by Kaleta and Taday ( Citation 2003 ) with the information provided in the corresponding references cited. For example, Eddie et al . ( Citation 1966 ) tested sera from 24 species of birds in Alaska (see their Table 1 ) by “direct and indirect complement fixation techniques in the presence of the standard psittacosis antigen.” Eddie et al . ( Citation 1966 ) reported that serum samples from only two species reacted, and the authors considered those titres too low to be of diagnostic significance. However, Kaleta and Taday ( Citation 2003 ) listed 20 bird species from Eddie et al . ( Citation 1966 ) as being positive for chlamydia. Additional apparent discrepancies are listed in Table 1 of the current article.