Naming nomenclature

[Josh_irving]

Hi all, 

 

A bit of a newbie so apologies if this is a dumb question but was hoping for the naming nomenclature a bit more. I understand that sp. means species (used when the species is unknow, but the genus isn't) and indet. means indetermined. But what does cf. mean? classification? I've seen it used before the genus and also after followed by a person's name.

 

For example, I read on this forum a tooth found in the Bull creek canyon formation belonging to cf Coelophysis. Aswell as ready of a Apachesaurus cf. A gregorii.

 

Are there any other terms that are frequently used? 

[Psittacosaur9]

Basically, cf. is used when an exact identification isn't possible, due to the fossil being poorly preserved or undiagnostic, but the author believes it to be of a certain genus or species.

 

Hope this helps!

[Tidgy's Dad]

https://wiki.pangaea.de/wiki/Taxon

[Josh_irving]

3 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

https://wiki.pangaea.de/wiki/Taxon

 

4 hours ago, Psittacosaur9 said:

Basically, cf. is used when an exact identification isn't possible, due to the fossil being poorly preserved or undiagnostic, but the author believes it to be of a certain genus or species.

 

Hope this helps!

 Thank you!

[Psittacosaur9]

17 minutes ago, Josh_irving said:

 

 Thank you!

You're welcome!

[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 stratigraphic 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."

[Mark Kmiecik]

These should also be helpful.

 

Paleo Terminology.pdf  and  Composition of scientific words; a manual of methods and a lexicon of materials for the practice of logotechnics. - Brown, Ro.url

 

If you click on either of these they will download to the download file on your device. They are both PDFs, so they won't take up much space. The second one can be tedious, unless you're actually naming a newly described species.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Mark Kmiecik