Wilhelm Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 When trying to classify fossils where the species is unknown which do you use? For example is it Tyrannosaurus sp. or Tyrannosauridae indet.? Edit: Using Albertosaurus as an example, I now believe it is something like this. Since Albertosaurus is hard to differentiate from Daspletosaurus and Gorgosaurus any finds should be labelled 'Tyrannosauridae indet.', but if you could identify it as Albertosaurus and didn't know the species (sarcophagus etc.) it should be labelled 'Albertosaurus sp.' until the species is known. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 If you know that the genus is Tyrannosaurus, then sp. is correct. If you can only get the id down to the family, then indet is correct....I think Welcome to the forum, by the way. 3 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DatFossilBoy Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Welcome to TFF! Sp.= specie Indet.= indeterminate If I remember correctly. Regards. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 I think basically, that sp. means you know it's a species of this genus, but indet., means it's not determined and so you're not sure. So indet is often used for bigger groups so Tyrannosaurid indet means you know it's a tyrannosaurid but don't know which one of the group, not even the genus. But you can have Eoadamicus sp. indet. meaning it's an Eodamicus but the species has not yet been determined. Or something. 3 Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 39 minutes ago, Ludwigia said: If you know that the genus is Tyrannosaurus, then sp. is correct. If you can only get the id down to the family, then indet is correct....I think Welcome to the forum, by the way. I think Ludwigia has it right. I think I've seen "sp. indet." used most often when the specimen(s) are too damaged for finer identification. If the genus is identifiable, there are other terms that are used: 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. 3 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 The terms sp. and indet. are interchangeable, although I would tend to use 'sp.' for specimens that can eventually be classified and 'indet.' for specimens that cannot be assigned with any degree of confidence (e.g., fragmentary elements or poor preservation). Additionally, genus names followed by ? are uncertain. Species names followed by ? are uncertain. Species names preceded by ? are questionably assigned to the genus. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 3 hours ago, piranha said: The terms sp. and indet. are interchangeable, although I would tend to use 'sp.' for specimens that can eventually be classified and 'indet.' for specimens that cannot be assigned with any degree of confidence (e.g., fragmentary elements or poor preservation). Additionally, genus names followed by ? are uncertain. Species names followed by ? are uncertain. Species names preceded by ? are questionably assigned to the genus. Interchangeable? As in synonymous? As in Eoadamicus sp. is the same as Eoadamicus indet.? Is that an invertebrate convention? I'm not sure I've ever noticed them not used together, as in Eoadamicus sp. indet. "Indet." is an adjective (indeterminate, or undetermined if you like). When used as Eoadamicus indet., what is indeterminate, the genus Eoadamicus? In that case, wouldn't the synonomy be "?Eoadamicus" and "Eoadamicus indet." Please explain your assertion. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 13 hours ago, Harry Pristis said: Interchangeable?... Whoops, a senior moment, I was imprecise with the wording. I should have said 'sp.' and 'sp. indet.' are used interchangeably. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 12 hours ago, piranha said: Whoops, a senior moment, I was imprecise with the wording. I should have said 'sp.' and 'sp. indet.' are used interchangeably. Thanks! I am not unfamiliar with senior moments. Now, let's get Adam to describe Eoadamicus nov. sp. for us. 1 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, Harry Pristis said: I am not unfamiliar with senior moments. Now, let's get Adam to describe Eoadamicus nov. sp. for us. Errrrrrr........... I expect they''ll be publishing my paper quite soon. Ahem. Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts