Re: cf. vs. aff.

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@bewellnet.com>]

Tsuh Yang,

I don't think there is a formal definition for these terms. It's just something
that becomes instinctive with taxonomists. From what I understand "sp. aff." is
used for specimens that obviously are a different species (except to lumpers) but
are similar to a known species. A. sp. Tefé would be a good example. It is a
species similar to A. agassizii, but for most it is obviously a different species.
If this species was being discussed in a formal scientific paper, it would be
properly called "A. sp. aff. agassizii from Rio Tefé". The term "cf." is used for
specimens that for the most part are the same as the holotype of a described
species, but they have minor variations that indicate that it might not be the
same species (isolated distribution pattern, subtle changes in shape or color
pattern). These are a favorite of splitters. A good example of this would be the
aggie form from the upper Rio Madeira around Porto Velho. It looks very much like
A. agassizii, but its habitat is a long ways away from other aggie populations and
it is slightly more elongate and has 3 caudal bands (instead of the normal 2)
bordering the outer edges of the tail. Is this a separate species? To a splitter,
probably yes; to a lumper, definitely not. Therefore it probably is best to use
"A. cf. agassizii from the upper Madeira/Porto Velho".

A subspecies is presently  considered as nothing but a population within a valid
species.

Mike Wise

Piabinha@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 99-11-20 09:47:48 EST, you write:
>
> << "cf." is Latin for "confer", meaning "compares with". For example, A. cf.
>  agassizii [Madeira] is a species from around Porto Vehlo, Brazil. In most
>  respects it "compares with" the holotype quite well. There are certain
> features,
>  however, that indicate that it might only be a sibling species closely
> related to
>  A. agassizii. A half century ago, this form might have been considered a
>  subspecies of A. agassizii, but modern taxonomy doesn't like the "subspecies"
>  idea anymore. Since we don't know at this time if this is a separate species
> or
>  just a slightly abberent population of A. agassizii, we list it as A. cf.
>  agassizii.  >>
>
> how exactly cf. differs from affinis?  and what are they suggesting we use
> instead of subspecies?
>
> tsuh yang chen, nyc, USA
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@listbox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!