Alternative wording for a phrase in English

[kdewa]

Hi,

As a non-English speaker, I'm looking for an alternative phrasing for the phrase: "Arthrobacter psychrochitiniphilus is a relatively new bacterial species." An editor of a journal told me that's no good English.
This species was first described in 2009, so to call it a "new species" is not entirely correct either. What alternative phrasing could be used to say it is not "very" new, but rather "relatively" new? A weaker statement of "new"?

I hope this kind of questions is allowed in this forum!

Thanks in advance!

[DaveAgain]

Recently described/discovered?

use the full date: Arthrobacter psychrochitiniphilus was first described in 2009?

A 21st century discovery?

[Soclydeza]

I agree with "recently discovered". Or maybe "newly discovered". Using "new" to describe the species is incorrect since the species existed before, we just didn't know about it until we discovered it; so the discovery is new, not the species. This is probably why the editor told you not to use it.

[Speakeasy]

To make a fine point, “relatively new”, is, in itself, good English. Relatively means “to a certain degree”; therefore, something that is “relatively new” is merely new, to a certain degree, when compared to some acknowledged norm.

I suspect that the editor’s difficulty with its usage is that the newly-discovered species of bacteria is not, in itself, new. Rather, the species itself has likely existed for quite some time unbeknownst to the medical and scientific communities and what is “new” here is its discovery, not the species. So then, your editor, without saying so, was pointing out an error of the “misplaced modifier” type. DaveAgain and Soclydeza have provided a simple means for circumventing the problem. Nevertheless, with a view to reducing the ambiguity, another solution for dealing with “misplaced modifiers” lies in placing the modifier as close as possible to the word that is being modified.

There is other, unstated, question as to what extent the editor believes that a discovery made nine years ago can be described as “recent” or “relevantly new”. Once we have resolved this matter, we can move on to the more challenging question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

EDITED
Tinkering

[kdewa]

Thanks! I think I go with "a recently described bacterial species". However, I think it is meaningful to talk about a "new species". In the biological world the term "species" is just an artificial delineation of a certain group of biochemical or genetic characteristics. Its dynamic; "species" come and go (a group of strains belonging to different species are later merged into one, according to the set of criteria used to define a species). I think the problem would be to call the species concerned "new", as in the mind of many biologists it has been around for nine years, and thus is not really "new", for some people. But "recently described" solves the problem quite well. Thanks again!