sp?

[Konigwolf]

Just me back with another silly question, what the goodness does sp. mean in realation to A. xxx and A. sp. (xxx). Ive obviously missed it somewhere

Andrew

 

[blueblue]

Just me back with another silly question, what the goodness does sp. mean in realation to A. xxx and A. sp. (xxx). Ive obviously missed it somewhere

Andrew

As i remember, sp = species, which basically refers to a species which has not been scientifically proven and named ^.^

For instance, before the scientific name Ap. baenschi was established,
we call this fish by Ap.sp."INKA".

 

[a.d.wood]

Hi there,

There are 2 things you will come across:

Apistogramma sp Morado > As blueblue states, this is a new isolate that has yet to receive a full scientific description.

Corydoras sp cf aeneus > this is a species (sp) that compares (cf) to Corydoras aeneus but due to various differences (morphology etc) we are unable to call it that specific species.

Regards

Andrew

 

[Rolo]

Corydoras sp cf aeneus > this is a species (sp) that compares (cf) to Corydoras aeneus but due to various differences (morphology etc) we are unable to call it that specific species.

No, that is not correct.
The combination "sp. cf." does not exist! ...and makes no sense.

And there are three common (!) abbreviations: "sp.", "cf." and "sp. aff." (but there are just some more)



Scientifically described species get a species name in combination with the name of the author and the year of description.
eg. Apistogramma taeniata (GÃœNTHER, 1862) or Apistogramma nijsseni Kullander, 1979

If the description was first made in another genus, the name/year have to put into brackets. (A. taeniata was originally described by Günther as Mesops taeniatus)
The genus can change, but the species name never change for this species. It only can be declined, due to the genus name. Or it can be synonymized, if a species is described twice. Than the species name from the oldest description is valid.



Now to the undescribed species/forms:

sp. (species):
Used for scientifically undescribed species. So, "Apistogramma sp." means "an undescribed species of the genus Apistogramma."
It's usually used with an additionally specification to separate them from each other, which describes the provenance or - if unknown - the appearance, sometimes people names or phantasy names, too.

e.g. Apistogramma. sp. "Mamoré", means, an undescribed Apistogramma species, (most likely) from Rio Mamoré system.



sp. aff. (species affinis):
aff. means "similar"
This is used for undescribed species, which are similar to another, but where are differences to the type species, so that it is probably an own species. It can also be specified by an addition.

e.g. Apistogramma sp. aff. payaminonis means "a species, similar to A. payaminonis, but most likely a different, undescribed species".
Apistogramma sp. aff. agassizii "Tefé" means "a species from Rio Tefé, similar to A. agassizii, but most likely a different species". ...This is almost the same as "A. sp. "Tefé", just more specified.



cf. (conform):
This is very similar to sp. aff.
It's also used for species, which are similar to another and where are differences to the type species from the description. But in this case it means, that the differences are too small to separate it in an own species, so it's probably just a local form of the same species. It can also be specified by an addition.

e.g. Apistogramma cf. eunotus "Santa Ana" means "a species, similar to A. eunotus, but from another locality (Santa Ana), but most likely the same species (A. eunotus)".

I hope that was understandable ;-)

regards,
Rolo

 

[Konigwolf]

Thanks for the help, now I'm fully clued in, well as much as anyone can be who are trying to go up a certain creek paddleless but hey thats just me

Andrew

 

[Mike Wise]

Rolo is correct for the most part. I do not think that 'cf.' & 'sp. affin.' really have separate definitions. Many taxonomists use the terms interchangeably. I, however, use the terms just like Rolo.

The only time 'cf.' and 'sp.' can be used in the same name is when discussing an undescribed species that does not have its own common name, but is similar to another undescribed species. Examples of this are A. sp. Breitbinden & A. cf. sp. Breitbinden Kurtzlappen/Short-lappets, A. sp. Masken/Masked (from the Rio Ucayali of Peru) & A. cf. sp. Masken/Masked (from the Rio Juruá of Brazil).

 

[mummymonkey]

I always thought that:

aff (affinis) - believed to be similar but distinct species
cf (confer) - believed to be different but the same species



Edit: Which is what Rolo said.

 

[Cumb Dunt]

I would like to add that if you see "spp.", please note that you are not seeing a typographical error of sp. but a different term entirely that literally means "species plural".

For example, "I primarily keep Mikrogeophagus spp. in my fishroom" means "I primarily keep more than one species from the genus Mikrogeophagus in my fishroom."

 

[Mike Wise]

I always thought that:

aff (affinis) - believed to be similar but distinct species
cf (confer) - believed to be different but the same species

I like using the 2 terms roughly in this way, too, but many taxonomist consider them to mean the same thing.

I use "cf." to mean a population of fish that is different from a certain species, but close enough that it probably is the same species.

I use "sp. aff. (or affin.)" to mean a population of fish that is sufficiently different enough that it probably is a separate species, but I am not positive.

My way of using these terms is not the only "correct" way, however.