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 (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 (2003) with the information provided in the corresponding references cited. For example, Eddie et al. (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. (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 (2003) listed 20 bird species from Eddie et al. (1966) as being positive for chlamydia. Additional apparent discrepancies are listed in Table 1 of the current article.