1

Re: cf.

I had this interesting request in from Patrick Roper, one of our county recorders and our Sussex Significant Species Register co-ordinator:

On uncertain identity

Biodiverseteers record specimens taken in the field, or found in collections,  in various ways including:

•    Giving the specimen(s) what they believe is the correct name
•    Giving only the genus followed by ‘sp’ for ‘species’ indicating that it is a member of that genus but that identification has not proceeded to species level.
•    Putting the abbreviation ‘cf’ before the species name indicating that what they had before them had many characteristics of a particular species, but also significant differences.

These examples are illustrated in this passage:

Cranston (1982) recorded the following either on the surface or in the space below loose bark on submerged branches in the stream flowing through Crowborough Warren, East Sussex: Brillia modesta, Brillia longifurca, Metriocnemus cf hygropetricus, Polypedilum pedestre, Polypedilum sp and Thienemannimyia sp.

Some authors sometimes put a question mark in front of the full name or specific name  -      ? Brillia modesta, Brillia ? modesta - meaning it looks like Brillia modesta, but that there is a level of doubt.  Others use ‘sp. aff.’ (a species with affinity to - Brillia sp. aff. modesta).

At present  when there is uncertainty about the specific status of an animal or plant even by a world expert it can, in RECORDER, only be recorded at generic level (Brillia sp.) or left as unverified, in which case it will not appear in reports

It would be useful if cf and other less-than-certain determination qualifiers could be included as options in RECORDER.  Clearly the finder might have discovered something quite important and looked at it quite carefully, which is very different from the individual who simply says “I cannot do this genus to species level.”  Apart from anything else, cf and similar records may well be worth following up at some future date and might represent a rare or even new to science species with a very restricted distribution.  Unverified records should perhaps also be considered for inclusion in reports as they might be correct and important

Note: cf is an abbreviation of the Latin word confer meaning ‘compare’ or ‘consult’ though in the cases cited above it would appear to mean ‘similar to’ or, perhaps, ‘that it should be compared with impeccably determined examples of the species in question’.

Perhaps a solution to this would be to add a system supplied determination type (called 'close to' or 'cf.') that would alter the display of taxon names within Recorder. So where we might have an occurrence of, say, Brillia modesta, we could give it a determination type of 'cf.' or 'close to' and it would then appear in Recorder and within reports as Brillia cf. modesta. The same could be applied to a 'level of doubt' determination type and an 'affinity to' det. type.

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

2 (edited by johnvanbreda 23-10-2008 07:38:18)

Re: cf.

Hi Charles

As well as the new determination types, it would be nice if the record card screens would accept species names of the format's you've described and automatically set the determination type for you.

Another type I've come across in museum work is Inferred, where the determination has been inferred from some other piece of information.

Cheers

John van Breda
Biodiverse IT

3

Re: cf.

Perhaps we need an analysis of all of these obscure determination variations so that they can be incorporated into Recorder in a methodical way?

Love the idea of setting the determination type automatically based on the user input.

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

4

Re: cf.

Analysis would definately be helpful to build a methodical system - what do you propose?

5

Re: cf.

To begin with I would suggest that someone with the relevant taxonomic and/or recording experience do some research to collate all (or as many as can practically be found) of the known terms. Then a system could be built into Recorder, perhaps as an extension to determination type, or perhaps as something separate, that could interpolate the determination term into the taxon name as necessary. So you might setup your terms list like this:

Term: Close to
Term abbreviation: cf.
Replacement pattern: <genus> $1 <species>

This would then insert the abbreviation cf. between the genus and species when a determination type of "Close to" is chosen. Also, when the abbreviation cf. is typed between the genus and species while doing data entry, it would automatically pick the "close to" det. type.

With a system like this in place, users could easily define their own terms for interpolation into species names.

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital