Did we ever consider more trophic level terms apart from the 4 we have now. I have a chemo-organotrophic
organism. Heterotroph will cover it (and I am ok with this), but perhaps we should make a decision soon whether the current enumerations are adequate.
Perhaps we should have two top-level terms, autotroph and heterotroph (these terms describe the carbon source). Optionally, we can add an optional second level for the energy source: lithotroph, chemolithotroph, organotroph, phototroph. There are a number of other terms, that are combinations of the top level and 2nd level terms, e.g. mixotroph, photoautotroph, but we can avoid them by having the two levels as described above. I propose to drop two terms: saprotroph (heterotroph will cover it) and aerobic anoxygenic phototroph. In the latter case, aerobic is covered elsewhere in gcdml; we would classify it as heterotroph-phototroph.