How important is the "cf" in a scientific name? ie Hysterocrates cf. gigas

Suppository

Suppository

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
6
To an average collector is it really a big deal? Or is it only important for breeders?

---------- Post added 11-01-2014 at 02:53 AM ----------

A quote to help define what this means : "The term “cf” stands for “confer”, and loosely interpreted, means “looks like”. When it is placed in between the “Genus” and “species”, it is implying “this fish looks like “Genus species”, but aside from that, it has not been “identified”. This may be for a number of reasons. Perhaps because the collectors/wholesaler hasn’t bothered to ID it, or it has not been scientifically identified yet (whether by the collection region, meristics, gross appearance, other, or any combination of these). All things considered, of these two reasons, the former is not as likely, given most collectors and wholesalers would rather assign an ID to make a sale, rather than be accurate (in my humble opinion), whereas, the latter is certainly FAR more conceivable"
 
Steve Nunn

Steve Nunn

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 30, 2002
Messages
1,781
In a taxonomic sense it relates directly (I won't give the Latin history of the term, that's covered above) to confer=closest related to, but not the same (that's from a taxonomic perspective remember). So it's not a rough ID in the correct sense. It is usually used correctly if it is an undescribed entity that is noted as being closest related to a particular species, it is identified to generic level by this stage of course, and quite likely a preliminary assumption of speciation of that entity. So as a taxonomist, it would tell me that 'species' (and I use it in quotation marks because technically a species cannot be a 'species' until it is formerly described AND published. This is because until you determine it can be diagnosed from all other members of its genus, one cannot justifiably [peer reviewed support] defend its specific status) is as yet undescribed, and appears closest related to a particular species. So, for a scientist who knows a genus very well, and determines a new entity unknown to science, may informally refer to this entity and go one step further by relating it to a known species to which is seems closest related. That's a taxonomic use of the term, but in the way you ask, I think it's a good answer. If not relating to taxonomy, it carries a slightly different meaning.....being "compares to"....(not confined to "closest related to")

Sorry for my ways in using the term "species", because in truth it is merely an artificial application to an entity we note in the wild, or in fossil evidence (we try to encircle it and label it, but often we do not know the true boundaries). Some species descriptions can be VERY dubious. But the species question/debate is much larger than this discussion (some esteemed students think we should apply numbers to terminal taxa instead of species names)!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top