"sp." and "cf." in species name

[racoll]

Just wondering what the reasoning behind naming Dolichancistrus sp_cf_setosus with both "sp." and "cf."?

This isn't something that PC normally does, and this isn't a notation seen in the literature. Either "cf.", or "aff.", or "sp." is used, but never more than one in conjunction.

[Acanthicus]

Hey,

I agree that sp. cf. is wrong, but you can use sp. aff.

Meaning that the species is not described yet, but very similar to a described one. Maybe thats what was meant in this case.

[racoll]

but you can use sp. aff.

There's no need for the "sp." in this case either, as the "aff." part tells you all you need to know: that the species is undescribed, but closely related. You won't see it written this way (sp. aff.) in any reputable journals.

[MatsP]

It may be CORRECT to call something sp. aff. but in PC "consistency rules", we strongly suggest using one and only one of the "sp", "cf", "aff" (etc). It is very helpful to use the same naming convention all over the Cat-eLog, rather than have one person using one thing, another using another thing.

I'm suggesting we change it to "cf_setosus".

--
Mats

[racoll]

It may be CORRECT to call something sp. aff. but in PC "consistency rules", we strongly suggest using one and only one

If you ask me, it is neither correct nor consistent.

[MatsP]

So, you are saying we should use sp. aff., but just use cf.?

I'm pretty sure we have no species with "sp_aff" in the name right now...

--
Mats

[MatsP]

Search results for "aff_". It appears to show some affinis and a couple of other species containing aff in the name.

There are no species with sp_aff_ in the name.

(I'm using the _ instead of . as that's how the actual database-entry looks, just like in the CLOG tags).

Since it's not that many, we can probably change them. But I'd like to understand what should change and where. I just remember changing them the other way some time ago, and I don't think anyone objected at the time [but there were several variations on the theme, using sp_cf_, sp_aff_, aff_ and cf_, and the conclusion was to remove the sp_ everywhere.

Also, bear in mind that whilst we take scientific correctness of our content seriously, we are MAINLY intended for hobbyists, not scientists.

Edit:
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 17&t=15599
Above is the link to the old thread on "sp_aff", "sp_cf", etc.

--
Mats

[racoll]

So, you are saying we should use sp. aff., but just use cf.?

No, no, that's certainly not what I'm saying. What I mean is, when you use either "cf." or "aff.", you don't need the "sp." part. Just the "cf." or "aff." is enough.

We don't use "aff." much on PC, usually favouring something like Fishus sp. "Rio Thames", and that's fine too.

Also, bear in mind that whilst we take scientific correctness of our content seriously, we are MAINLY intended for hobbyists, not scientists.

Indeed, but this is the first time I'd see it [sp. cf.] on PC, so hence the question.

[racoll]

Just read that old thread you posted Mats, and HH said exactly the same as I what I have just tried to say.

The same goes for aff.

So it is one of Corydoras sp., Corydoras cf. xxx or Corydoras aff. xxx.

[MatsP]

Ok, great. Obviously just misreading the meaning of what you wrote, thinking you disagreed, when in fact you only disagreed with the "may be correct" into a "is not correct".

--
Mats

[MatsP]

And to conclude: I have changed the "sp. cf. setosus" into "cf. setosus".

Dolichancistrus cf_setosus

So I think we can put this into the "resolved" bucket.

--
Mats

[Jools]

Indeed. My fault for going too quickly with multiple windows. The sp_cf was auto text from the old days.

Jools