Blue green algae isn't, it is a bacteria. It can live anywhere, at any
temperature and is even found at high altitudes in the atmosphere.

If you want to read more about it have a look here.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html

I found out a lot about it when our local trout fishery was closed down
because of it, my daughter, who is a microbiologist, looked up some of it
for me and I found the rest.

Google search on Cyanobacteria for plenty more info.

It's easier to say BGA and since Phycologist do most of the work both
now and in the past on this group, we still call it BGA. We all know
what we are talking about in general terms. Semantist are correct, but
BGA is very far removed from all other bacteria also.............

If we need to get more specific, we go to the latin name genus and
then to species as rule.

I see nothing wrong with using BGA personally or causally. For a
Scientific paper, I would not use BGA as a term but many Phycologist
still do and that's fine also.They will not put them in a table that
way but might discuss them in the text. If a more specific answer is
required, I'll move from the common name down to the latin.

Would you know the genus Compsopogon?
Probaly not, but if I said staghorn algae, you would likely know or
have heard of it, nothing wrong with common names is my point. But
what Kingdom is this one in? Division? Order?

Latin scares some folksI'm not anal about names and would not
correct someone about the names as long as it's clear what we are
talking about.
If you are one on my students needing to learn the names for all the
critters and plants, you better know the latin names for the test:-)

Regards,
Tom Barr