Regarding the use of the abbreviation aff.

[LauraZ5]

I was under the impression that this was used when an individual didn't have a positive ID? Sort of a way to avoid having to say... I don't know what I've got but I think it is abc aff. xyz or I got the plant from so and so and they don't know exactly what it is so I'll just follow suit and look official and toss the aff. in for effect so as to not draw attention to the fact that I really don't know precisely what I have other than that it has an affinity toward abc aff. xyz?

Examples from Allen Lowrie's list of seed-
D. aff. paradoxa "orange flowers" Mount Bomford, Kimberley, West Australia
D. aff. paradoxa "metallic orange flower" north of Prince Regent River, Kimberley
D. aff. paradoxa "metallic orange flower" Mount Elizabeth, Kimberley

An example from Matt Hochberg of New York's site-
sp.aff.natalensis ('sp. big pink fl')  

aff. is an abbreviation for the word affinity, correct? So for all practical purposes, those who use this aff. don't really know exactly what they have they're just applying their best guess. Am I correct in this assumption?

What would be so wrong with simply listing a plant/seed as D. paradoxa "orange flowers" (not a positive ID but most likely it will fall into this classification)?  

Just curious.

 

[Seandew]

Hi Laura,

You are correct in assuming aff. is an abbreviation of affinity.

The term is generally applied when a new plant is discovered that does not quite fit into the currently known species. So, using the D. aff. paradoxa as an example, a new plant has been found by Lowrie that resembles D. paradoxa but as far as Lowrie is concerned is not actually D. paradoxa. Therefore to simply name it D. paradoxa "orange flowers" would not be appropriate.

Having said this, the term or abbreviation of affinity is not a scientifically accepted term in regards to nomenclature and is merely one used for convenience and a method of avoiding confusion- at least by the discoverer.

I personally think it is a good way to differentiate between obviously different plants. I think that it should be limited only to the discovery of new plants though.

 

[LauraZ5]

Why am I not surprised that it is you who was in a position to answer my question.  Thank you because there is nothing out there on the web on aff.

I see that aff. and think hmmmm... what's really going on. Seriously, Lowrie has three D. aff. paradoxa just on that seed list alone. Even if those plants are a new species that he stumbled across on one of his inventory acquisition expeditions, the use of same seems unorthodox to me. Not only is it confusing but what it boils down to is that it is a totally manufactured term of convenience. It would appear there are extremely valid reasons why the scientific community may not be all that willing to accept and/or acknowledge the term. No wonder why you can't find any information on the term out on the web.

If I may be so bold, using the term is rather pompous in my opinion. I fully grasp the concept behind why it would not be appropriate to name a plant that resembles D. paradoxa as truly being D. paradoxa without setting it apart from the "real" D. paradoxa somehow but there has to be a better way than tossing in some term of convenience which appears to me to be a means by which to avoid the time and expense of having to deal with the characteristics of a plant that are deviating from type. Furthermore, deviations from type within the same species are not uncommon based on location so to add more confusion to the situation, one of those D. aff. paradoxa plants up there from Lowrie's seed list might ultimately be deemed to be a real honest to goodness D. paradoxa or quite possibly a subspecies or who knows.

My greatest concern is that not having the inclination, time, equipment, adequate sample, or the expertise to be able to go through the process of having a plant properly listed creates confusion. Nomenclature is supposed to be internationally unambiguous and understandable and adding that aff. doesn't exactly achieve this goal.

Nomenclature references have been standardized for a reason, so that we can all be on the same page. Playing games, and I do now view the use of this term as game playing, by adding aff. lends much confusion and could ultimately be the demise of a species because there is no means by which to identify it as possibly being threatened or endangered when it gets lumped in to a known genus and species for the sake of convenience by simply adding that little aff.  

While I can appreciate why some may feel the use of the term might be a good way to "differentiate between obviously different plants" with the use of same being limited to newly discovered plants, it would appear that the term is being abused if that makes any sense given it truly doesn't exist anyway. Those D. aff. paradoxa have shown up on his list for how many years now... ten or more?  Now there is another person out there who evidently bought seed from Lowrie who is listing the plants from that seed the same way Lowrie did? And how many more are out there who have adopted the use of that term?  Seems like a logistical classification nightmare to me even if one did limit the use of the term to newly discovered plants (individual bias now enters the equation) and it really makes me scratch my head and wonder if there isn't something else going on. Seems to me as if the use of this term undermines the stability of names and circumvents the acceptable practices of collecting a specimen and getting it into a herbarium and and and and. There's a lot of work associated with the evaluation and listing process.

What do I know, that darn aff. has been throwing me for a loop for a while and I find the use of same by "experts" to be extremely frustrating for the entry level botanical peons such as myself.

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

In the case of Lowrie using Drosera aff. paradoxa I heard it through the grapevine that this is because he never released seed of the "true" Drosera paradoxa (don't ask me why that would be so). It all seems a bit dodgy to me.

Well, there will always be instances of individuals that refuse to conform to the species requirements...quite a lot of them actually. Drosera dielsiana is a good example of this with it's propensity to hybridize with other S. African Drosera in habitat and even in collections! I've grown numerous examples of the specie. Some adhere tightly to the descriptions in the protolouge, others far less so. If I want to distribute a particular example with some good characteristics, but with an obvious departure from the protolouge descriptions, how do I do this without leading a grower astray in regards to the key features of D. dielsiana? I think in this instance, the use of "aff." is responsible usage...meaning it is close, but with some digressions from the key description. Look at it as a sort of "heads up"

The problem with this is these organic beings are not willing to conform to the concept of "type", and to lable every instance of variation as "aff." is not intelligent.

The intelligent solution IMO is to employ a different form of nomenclature for interesting variations - and this instrument is in place with the cultivar registration system afforded to us by the ICBN, although it has been rejected by most growers who seem to prefer making up illegitimate names along with the overuse of "aff."

It's also a good ploy to beef up commercial seedlists.

 

[LauraZ5]

Given your example of D. dielsiana and given Seandew's example of a need to be able to differentiate between two obviously different species, I can see how incorporating aff. into a binomial has occurred and I would be a proponent of same. There is a need to “set apart” that our current system has no means by which to address.

All said and done, the use of same as pertains to the D. paradoxa appears to be a grandiloquent move.

At this point, I know more about aff. than I needed to know and my thoughts are now that the existence of the term is just not good but I really can't put my finger on why.

Over here in the US, we do not automatically list a species as endangered when it is newly discovered. Thanks to bureaucrats, we currently have no systematized method by which to protect new discoveries and it would appear attempts to move toward a different form of nomenclature will be repeatedly and systematically thwarted. I can see that too, people don't like change. I presume other countries have similar stumbling blocks present. I can't help but wonder if our current nomenclature system isn't conveniently "lacking" thus creating little loopholes.

Seems as if everyone is capable of agreeing on the higher level aggregations of most species but when it gets down to the lowest aggregate of the species epithet, problems can arise. We've really got to find a better way as this is the key to being in a position to better the ecological well-being of the environment as well as to regulate trade and commerce.

¯`•.¸¸.•´¯ `•.¸ ><((((º>•.´¯`•.¸¸ •.´¯`•.¸><((((º>•

 

[Joseph Clemens]

Here is a link that mentions and describes the use of aff. / affinity:
http://www.mfaint.demon.co.uk/cactus/naming.html

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Laura,

There is another alternative route that in my opinion is more legitimate than this coined phrase, but one that is infrequently employed - namely the cultivar registration process afforded through the ICBN via the ICPS.  I have long argued that if an individual within the species is noteworthy enough to be desirable, and so subsequently expected to find a wide distribution, then it should be registered preferably in advance of that distribution.  I do not believe that the ICBN recognizes any legitimacy to the term "aff.", and if this is the case even widespread common usage of the term will not grant that legitimacy.  Currently, the registration system is cumbersome in terms of publication time.  Most growers want to employ the ICPN for their cultivar publications, and there is a good year wait.  New discoveries need to be distributed earlier than this timetable allows, so the "aff." serves this instance.  It should be noted that the ICPN is not the only publication available - any hard copy with sufficient distribution may be employed.  I have published both in the UK Journal and the ICPN.  Even a society newsletter may be used, provided that Dr. Jan Schlauer who is the registering official is sent a copy for review.  I have made inquiry as to why electronic publication will not meet the requirements, and gathered that the ICBN (the same institution that has preserved nomenclature since Linneaus' day) regards electronic media as unreliable, and possibly even faddish, LOL.
The International Congress of Botanical Nomenclature takes a looooong view.  They've been around the block a few times.
The registration process is elegantly simple and designed for common usage, but it has been rejected mostly by the community who prefer to embrace less legitimate (and intelligent), although admittedly faster forms.  The argument is that such multitudinous submissions bogs down the system, and only desirable cultivars should be published.  Fooey to that!  The term "desirable" is a fairly subjective term though, and it is solely the authors choice as to what plants this term will be applied to.  If enough people showed a willingness to embrace the tool given to them by the ICBN, I suppose a dedicated journal could be created to speed up publishing times.  The Co-editors of the ICPS were willing to consider hosting such, and I hope one day to see it.  For anyone with an interest in nomenclature and taxonomy, the issue is perplexing and frustrating - a solution is in place, but few will embrace it.

 My feeling is that any material carrying an "Aff." should be regarded with a slightly raised eyebrow, a grain of salt, a hand on the wallet, and the appropriate Protolouge key description.  Individual anomalies are always interesting though and deserve to make the rounds.  They are trouble makers that can bring relaization that taxonomy is far from an exact science, and that the entire "species" concept is a fairly pitiful attempt based on highly egocentric assumptions.  Such anomolies spark good discussions, but they also serve to confuse those who are not cognizant taxonomists.  A picture is worth a thousand words, and in my opinion are as important as the protolouges. A website based on legitimately published material of this sort would be invaluable if it were inclusive.  It is a shame that such an opportunity is not more realized, but that's the way the tentacle bends.

 

[Joseph Clemens]

I agree 100% with Tamlin about the Cultivar registration process. It is one of the most important and helpful tools for the CP horticulturist. It is however, regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) rather than the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN).

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey Laura,

I don't see how so much frustration can arise from somebody's honest attempt to say he has a possible new species in hands. Most taxonomist would keep absolutely quiet about a new species until it is published and you would never even know about it. But Allen not only lets you know beforehand that he may have something new, he even gives you the chance to cultivate it! If it takes a few years or more to publish new species only shows how difficult a process it is. Maybe he needs more field work, or maybe it's simply not his priority right now. I'm sure he's working on many other interesting species which surely keep him busy...


Take Care,
Fernando Rivadavia

P.S. Cultivar publication is certainly a valid option, but it requires a certain amount of work which Allen might not be willing to go through, considering he'll be publishing them as new species eventually.

An option would be to list them as D.sp."orange flower", for example, but that doesn't really give you much of a clue about what you're buying from his list. So using the "aff." seems like a great option to me.

 

[LauraZ5]

Hey Fernando, I can certainly appreciate why your response was so passionate. I don't know either Lowrie or Hochberg and would therefore not attempt to speculate as to why they choose to use the term. To a certain degree, I would fall into the Dawnstar and Clemens camp regarding usage of same. Regarding my frustration, it would appear I am not alone.

¯`•.¸¸.•´¯ `•.¸ ><((((º>•.´¯`•.¸¸ •.´¯`•.¸><((((º>•

 

[Seandew]

"aff." is a commonly used term in WA and is most often associated with the naming of unique terrestrial orchids. You may be aware of how much variation and complexity that exists within the tuberous/pygmy/petiolaris Drosera of WA, but these differences and variations pale into insignificance in comparison to the native orchids. Allen Lowrie has acquaintances within the WA orchid set and as far as I am aware was once incredibly interested in them himself (probably still is).

At one stage, there was an explosion of orchids discovered throughout south western WA and many plants which were once considered to be a single species by those who had not studied them were separated into many species. On top of this, many new forms were found. Many of the forms that were recognised as being obviously distinct from the type species were given the "aff." prefix to help avoid confusion. To some it may have actually added to the confusion, but I myself think that it did help in the short term- particularly since many of these species are restricted to areas that are doomed to habitat destruction. Recognising the plants in these areas as distinct provides a greater chance of protection. Since this time, many of these new forms have been described as new species and several have been protected.

It seems like Allen has adapted the use of aff. to use for similar problems associated with newly discovered forms of Drosera.

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey Laura,

     Let's just keep in mind that using "aff." is an informative option, like the use of "Drosera sp.whatever". It's of course nice to have an official cultivar name while we wait for the official publication of the new taxon, but in the end it would just add to the long list of useless taxonomic names.

     For those of you who have never worked with taxonomy, I'll tell you it's a major pain-in-the-behind every time you want to write an article on a certain taxon, having to study all the possibly synonymous type herbarium specimens (usually deposited in institutions on separate continents) and associated literature (often in hard to get & obscure journals from the previous centuries).

     So while for the **hobbiest** it may be better to have an official name attached, for the **taxonomist** it's best to be patient and publish a single article (either describing the plant as a new taxon or simply describing the known natural variation for that group). Just look at the mess orchid taxonomy is because of the excessive names floating around!! For this reason, I am fully in favor of keeping publications in general (including cultivars) just a little complicated and bureaucratic, in hopes of holding back a bit the excessive enthusiasm of some hobbiest, hehehe!

      Not to mention: why go through the trouble of publishing it twice, first as a cultivar and then as a new taxon? Just to make growers happy?

  In my opinion cultivar status should be saved for plants worth cultivating, but not necessarily worthy of their own taxonomic rank.

      In the end, it's Allen's choice what he does with the strange plants he sees in the field and I'm just happy he shares it with us all as soon as he does find them, instead of keeping them secret for years, which is what most taxonomists do, fearful that others will "rob" their work. And Allen has had that happen to him a few times in the past, let's not forget!


Best Wishes,
Fernando Rivadavia

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Just a note on the availability of D.paradoxa in cultivation:

As far as I remember, the plant was thus named because it took Allen YEARS of field work to fully understand what D.paradoxa was, because of its different growth forms. In the meanwhile, he was distributing seeds from the several locations he found, until he realized most belonged to the same species.

And if you don't believe me, just check the publication and you'll see that one of the known collections cited by Allen for D.paradoxa was made by myself in 1993, in N.Australia, Kakadu National Park. And I **KNOW** I distributed seed of this one!

Take Care,
Fernando Rivadavia

P.S. Another option would be to check the other locations he mentions in the original publication and then see if he has seeds of D.paradoxa from these sites on his present (or past) seed lists.

 

[LauraZ5]

Say Fernando,

Let’s just keep in mind that .aff doesn’t exist for all practical purposes.  

“why go through the trouble of publishing it twice, first as a cultivar and then as a new taxon? Just to make growers happy?”  Fernando, I did not suggest this be done. Perhaps you are reading a tad too much into what I have written.  If a few people choose to insert an extra word here and there, far be it for me to attempt to stop them from doing so however there is nothing inherently wrong with neophyte hobbyists questioning the existence of these isolated occurrences and forming their own opinions.

Regarding this statement, “I am fully in favor of keeping publications in general (including cultivars) just a little complicated and bureaucratic, in hopes of holding back a bit the excessive enthusiasm of some hobbiest, hehehe!”… pray tell why Fernando? Help me understand.  Yes, I am a hobbyist as pertains to CPs but I would best be classified as an environmentalist.  I volunteer hundreds of hours controlling, eradicating, and managing introduced species and this does not include time spent working with children to better prepare them to carry the torch in the future. Do you realize we “hobbyists” depend upon people such as yourself and your publications to enable us to be in the best position to sort out which species belong and which don’t? My country is a mess. We in the US are not alone. The invasion process is well under way globally. Introduced species have the disastrous proclivity to take over natural areas to the detriment or exclusion of native plant communities and do wreak havoc.

I apologize if I have offended you or your friend in any way. Best wishes in your future field studies, Laura

 

[Fernando Rivadavia]

Hey Laura,

Please forgive me if what I wrote sounded strong, I swear I had a smile on my face as I typed it all! OK? Please no hard feelings?? Give me a little credit, after all English is a 2nd language for me and it doesn't always come out the way I intended...

When I wrote about how a little bureaucracay was good, I was really thinking of orchid taxonomy, which is a much bigger mess than any other plant group simply because there are so many eager hobbyist (and taxonomists too!!!) who will publish anything as a new species... Giving them a little bit of trouble does however hold the tide a tiny bit, I think (and hope).

As for "making the growers happy", it was just a statement to show how many different interests are mixed in this group. For hobbyist it can be quite frustrating to grow a whole bunch of "sp." and "aff.", not having plants correctly identified with either a species or cultivar name. I know since I've been in this position...

But this problem, in my opinion, is not AS BIG a problem as the excess of published names is for taxonomists, because once something is published, it's eternal. On the other hand "sp." and "aff." is temporary.

And let's not forget plants labelled as "sp." and "aff." is also VERY frustrating to taxonomists, hahaha!

Take Care,
Fernando Rivadavia


P.S. Congratulations on your volunteer work! All your time dedicated to this cause helps convince me that there is still hope against weeds... (all except U.subulata in our collections, of course!).

 

[LauraZ5]

No hard feelings Fernando. It's the Internet and often times it is difficult to interpret intent given readers are not in a position to see accompanying body language and not in a position to hear inflections in speech.

Thank you for your P.S. comments.  Do you volunteer anywhere?

Yes, "many different interests are mixed in this group". There are a few members here at Terra who, like myself, volunteer on public land in an attempt to clean up this big mess we've all got on our hands in hopes that native plant communities can be seen by our grandchildren in something other than a picture book. Best wishes to you in eradicating U. subulata in your collection. Oddly enough that particular species is either endangered or threatened in a few states here in the United States.

 

[Hortman]

My two cents...

Since aff. does not appear in the list of the ICBNs list of accepted abbreviations (http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0117SubjIndx.htm), it has no place being included in a botanical name.

Perhaps I should play devil's advocate and ask what people think of the taxonomic rank of forma? As I understand it, it's fallen out of favor and many taxonomists think that just because some plant shows a genetic variation, it shouldn't necessarily be given a taxonomic designation. Theoretical example: In a population of pink lady's slipper orchids, one plant reveals white flowers. So...should that be named Cypripedium acaule f. alba? Or on a display label for that plant, should it read Cypripedium acaule (white flowered form), designating it as a variation, but not enough of a stable variation to merit its own taxonomic rank.

Comments?

 

[LauraZ5]

Cypripedium acaule (white flowered form)
My .02 ¢

I have/had this plant here. It WAS a beauty until the drought hit and fried its little brains out. Actually, I think I have lost of all of my native orchids.

 

[Tamlin Dawnstar]

Well, in my opinion it really doesn't matter what appellations are added after the binomial, as long as they are in "double quotes" since nothing above the rank of var. are acceptable by the current vogue in legitimate publication, and hence void of meaning as far as serious botanists/taxonomists are concerned. All referrants must go back to the protolouge, and for good reason. Without a valid publication there can be no solid intelligent starting ground for comparison and revision, and there is simply too much varition out there to allow publications based on superficial differences in phenotype unless they can be demonstrated to be statistically relevant within a field population (and that over time). The problem as stated previously is that few horticulturalists and hobbiests have any regard for these admittedly esoteric perogatives of taxonomy. Such growers base their interest on more aesthetic appreciations and want plants that look different. Personally, I see no onus in double publication - an initial exposure in cultivar registry does not preclude later publication at species level, and that sort of history can be discussed in the subsequent protolouge. In the meantime it can usefully provide a starting point for comparison within the growing communiy, resolve argument, etc. All of this is a moot point since growers are going to do what they durn well please in this regard, and no serious taxonomist would ever base any research on material not field collected, or immediately derived from field collected seed. So, unless it has a valid publication that can be called up and referred to, all such designations can and should safely be ignored by those interested in formal study, and the rest call call them whatever they please - but understand: agreement is then not possible as to "is it REALLY this or that" - how could it be? Photo compilations like Bob Z's compendium are entertaining, but consensus opinion based on such photo's is weak at best, and at worst can foster false convictions - a fact Bob has tried to point out with his disclaimer on site. Valid scientific publication at some level of taxonomic or horticultural rank is the only way intelligent review is possible. Until that happens, it's all just speculation and opinion and growers would do well to take that to heart. Serious collectors, like taxonomists, base their collections on field collected material only. Subsequent generations in collections must likewise be suspect as there is always the possibility of human error compounded by possible uncontrolled hybridization, and another very good reason why growers should always check back with their donors of such material for them to confirm or deny if this event has happened. No one is immune. To add salt to the wound of uncertainty, keep in mind as well that the very concept of "Type" on which protolouges are based is dependent on the depth of research and the opinion of the author. If the publication is nearsighted it can also generate confusion when it is referred to, and I believe that within a 20 million year range it is very hard to be far sighted. Attempts to understand the mechanics of speciation may in the end be just human vanity: lofty scientific opinions hammered home by egotistists convinced of their superior (and intrinsically limited)views. The current vogue of focusing on a single gene to create a phylogenic tree is also synthetic, since genetic expression is not controlled by isolated genes, but rather by expression of the entire genome. Just because it has a tooth doesn't mean it's a shark.