Scientific Nomenclature

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Harry

I saw in the gallery where you went over some of the ICZN rules. In that discussion you went over the most commonly encountered notation, sp. For the benefit of the group, would you care to go over some of the less common notations, such as c.f, spp., and whatever others come to mind? Brock and some of the other seasoned guys may be good ones to weigh in on this discussion as well. Thanks.

[ebrocklds]

dan,

here is wha i can tell you

sp - speceis that is not specified

spp - multiple unidentified species

cf - is for an unconfirmed species id. i.e. Allosaurs cf jimmadseni if you are uncertain that it is jimmadseni or if it could be fragilis

ssp - is a subspecies that is not specified

sspp - multiple unidentified subspecies.

none of these are italicized.

am i forgetting any?

hope these help

brock

[jkfoam]

Dan,

I went to the ICZN website and I did not find any discussion on abbreviations. However, I recommend using Google. Just Google "Binomial nomenclature + cf (or whatever abbreviation you want) and they will bring up a discussion.

JKFoam

[Northern Sharks]

I had understood that cf. stood for "compared favorably to"

[ebrocklds]

I had understood that cf. stood for "compared favorably to"

i do not know what it stands for but that would make sense. my understanding is that you use cf. if you are pretty certain it belongs to a particular species but there is still room to doubt. this may be because of differences or missing elements that are necessary for an affirmative id.

brock

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Thanks guys. This proved to be a pretty worthwhile post.

[Harry Pristis]

Thanks guys. This proved to be a pretty worthwhile post.

I always interpret "cf." as "compare to," in the same sense as "compares favorably to." I see this used most often (exclusively?) in linking a species to a genus, as in "Cretodus cf. C. arcuatus" This seems to me to be an invitation to make the comparison, rather than a definitive conclusion by the author. I think it implies a fairly high confidence level in the comparison.

Another notation I have seen is "aff." which I think is an abbreviation for "affinity with," as in "Family Otodontidae aff. Cretodus." This seems to imply a significantly lower level of confidence in the assignment.

I read "ssp." as "subspecies" or "race," if you like.

In one of his books, Girard Case labels a shark tooth, "Cretolamna appendiculata var.lata ". I assume that "var." is an abbreviation for "variety" or "variant." I do not know the distinction between "ssp." and "var."

-------------Harry Pristis

[Gatorman]

I love these topics I always learn something and this one I'll put to good use.

[ebrocklds]

I always interpret "cf." as "compare to," in the same sense as "compares favorably to." I see this used most often (exclusively?) in linking a species to a genus, as in "Cretodus cf. arcuatus" This seems to me to be an invitation to make the comparison, rather than a definitive conclusion by the author. I think it implies a fairly high confidence level in the comparison.

Another notation I have seen is "aff." which I think is an abbreviation for "affinity with," as in "Family Otodontidae aff. Cretodus." This seems to imply a significantly lower level of confidence in the assignment.

I read "ssp." as "subspecies" or "race," if you like.

In one of his books, Girard Case labels a shark tooth, "Cretolamna appendiculata var.lata ". I assume that "var." is an abbreviation for "variety" or "variant." I do not know the distinction between "ssp." and "var."

-------------Harry Pristis

Harry i would venture a guess to say that "var" would be used if it is not a significant enough difference to name a new subspecies. i.e. some modern moluscs vary quite a bit depending on the temperature of the water they live in. (size, color and decoration) but they are all the same species. young of a cold water animal if placed in warm water will take on the warm water characteristics. so i guess i am saying the environment can cause variations, not necissarily designated as a subspecies

just an idea.

brock

[Boesse]

I might add that Genus spp. can also indicate multiple named species - for example, if in a sentence you wanted to list five species of Carcharinus, you can collectively call them Carcharinus spp.

E.G. - "Teeth of Carcharocles megalodon, Isurus hastalis, and Carcharinus spp. are common in the Calvert Formation near Chesapeake Beach."

Bobby

[Boesse]

I might also mention that at least in Vertebrate Paleontology, the use of ssp. and var. is extremely rare. For example, in the fossil groups I study (marine mammals), you only come across the usage of those two (even naming subspecies) in 19th century literature, at least for cetaceans, and it was primarily europeans (Italian and Belgian paleocetologists).

Bobby

[MB]

I might also mention that at least in Vertebrate Paleontology, the use of ssp. and var. is extremely rare. For example, in the fossil groups I study (marine mammals), you only come across the usage of those two (even naming subspecies) in 19th century literature, at least for cetaceans, and it was primarily europeans (Italian and Belgian paleocetologists).

Bobby

Hi all,

Most than "cf". should be "cfr." from latin=confer=comparable at...

at least the book I have in my hands says this

Have a nice day

[geofossil]

I might also mention that at least in Vertebrate Paleontology, the use of ssp. and var. is extremely rare. For example, in the fossil groups I study (marine mammals), you only come across the usage of those two (even naming subspecies) in 19th century literature, at least for cetaceans, and it was primarily europeans (Italian and Belgian paleocetologists).

Bobby

Excellent point above.

It's important to understand each paleo discipline estabishes it's own culture within a larger framework. Perhaps a dozen researchers in the world touch upon Upper Paleozoic corals but only 3 or so concentrate on them. Those 3 set the tone of nomenclature...( the use of cf and aff etc.). There is usually attempt to retain constitency 'within' the niche field. Needless to say, if 3 people study a subject and publish then they all know each other, collaborate on research, review eachother's works, etc. When I worked on exclusvely on rugose corals the 'criteria' of taxonomic usage was not the same as when I worked on brachiopods. On the surface the terms can be the same but the practical application can vary. This can pose a bit of an issue over time as new generations of researchers pick up the torch and attempt to parse out the precise meaning of earlier publications.

Equally 'loose' between disciplines, especially in the last 25 years, is the consistent use of Latin. The genus name can change frequently with new taxonomy, cladistics, etc. The species name is gender related and subject to other peculiarities of Latin. Latin, once a given of the educated, has become more elusive. Take 3 genders, 6 declensions, 5 case endings and it becomes ??????? Was the original genus modified by an adjective, or 'of' a place, etc. Is that a 1st declension feminine noun or a 3rd declension... The bottom line is some disciplines are pickier about proper Latin modification and others 'looser' in trying to get it right . Sometimes 'picky Latin use is strickly a case of if there is any one around who is qualified or anyone who cares all that much. I studied Latin for 5 years and I've been stumped a few times when asked how to put a new genus and species in agreement.

[Harry Pristis]

In the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 19 March 1987, there is a note by Jiri Zidek concerning "...Syntax in Taxonomic Statements." There follows a response from Richard Estes.

Zidek argues (among other things) that "cf." and "aff." are synomymous. Estes disagrees.

Estes, the Editor of the JVP at the time, says the following:

Lucas (1987) also discussed the usage of the qualifiers aff. and cf., stating that "most vertebrate paleontologists understand the meanings of aff. and cf." My discussion with vertebrate paleontologists, and also my reading of their manuscripts, suggests that this may not be the case.

Zidek (1987) believed the two qualifiers to be interchangeable. If he is correct, one of them should probably be abandoned. I think that they often have, and should have, different meanings.

If I have a fossil element that does not differ structurally from that of a particular species, and also does not display diagnostic character states of that species or genus, I may wish to indicate this similarity in a structural sense (there may be stratagraphic and geographic reasons for this as well). The use of cf. in this case indicates a conservative identification, i.e. simply "to be compared with."

To me, the use of aff. indicates a greater degree of confidence. Perhaps I have a specimen that has most of the diagnostic character states of a taxon, or has one or two that differ very slightly, such that I have some minor doubts about referring it directly to that taxon. In this case I use aff. as an indication that I believe this specimen to be very close to the taxon concerned.

Obviously, there is intergradation in these two concepts. and it is certain that different workers will not apply it in exactly the same way. But if there is an attempt to follow such usage consistently, I believe that the author's degree of confidence in the identification is more accurately represented.

Because both [aff. and cf.] are an "alias for tentative identifications" (Zidek, 1987) information content may not be increased; again it is a matter of taste.

I think I like Estes' distinction between these two terms.

----------Harry Pristis