aff./cf.

[Barry Roth]

John McNeill's helpful addendum points up an area in which my prior
post may have been unclear.  Intelligent discourse in systematics must
keep the distinction between physical similarity (observable, objec-
tive) and genealogic relationship (inferential, interpretive).  Like
many other of our inherited conventions in systematic biology, the
customary usage of "aff." does not do this.  It comes from a time when
physical similarity was accepted as a reasonable proxy for phylogenetic
relationship.  The translations from _Botanical Latin_ (Stearn) betray
this ellipsis too ("bordering" -- i.e., in morphology -- equals "akin
to"), if not, indeed, a kind of procumbent Scala Naturae with the
closest relatives next in line ...

Barry Roth