Go to Naturalis.nl

Search results

Record: oai:ARNO:526986

AuthorBram van de Beek
TitleNomenclatorische en taxonomische toelichting op de naamlijst van de Nederlandse bramen (Rubus L.)
JournalGorteria : tijdschrift voor de floristiek, de plantenoecologie en het vegetatie-onderzoek van Nederland
AbstractDe publikatie van de naamlijst van de Nederlandse bramen vereiste een aanzienlijk aantal taxonomische en nomenclatorische beslissingen. In dit artikel worden deze toegelicht.
The publication of the checklist of the Dutch brambles required a considerable number of taxonomic and nomenclatorial decisions. This article provides an argumentation for the choices that are made.
Because many of these are of international interest the main decisions are summarized in English below: New combination Rubus nemoralis fo. laciniatus (Willd.) A.Beek. R. laciniatus Willd. is a later homonym of R. laciniatus Tollard (lectotype designated in this paper), which is a laciniate form of R. ulmifolius. A status as species is not apt for these laciniate forms.
Restoration of names previously in use but recently changed Suberecti (Lindl.) Focke: because the included R. fruticosus L is not a previously (art. 52.2) indicated type of the genus the name is not illegitimate.
Rubus affinis Weihe & Nees: the reference to the Fl. Suec. of Linnaeus in the protologue does not make the name superfluous. The Fl. Suec. was published before 1753 and the specimen is not previously (art. 52.2) indicated as type. Weihe & Nees split R. fruticosus L. into the typical form (the plant of the Hort. Cliff. – a Corylifolii species) and another taxon (that of the Fl. Suec.), R. affinis. Their choice would have to be followed if R. fruticosus was not recently conserved.
Candicantes Focke: Reichenbach refers in his description of Rubus candicans to ‘R. silesiacus olim’. This is not a reference to a publication but refers to a herbarium specimen as is clear by comparison to similar cases in his work. Thus, his name is not illegitimate and R. candicans is identical to R. montanus Lib. ex Lej, which is the type of the series Candicantes. This name is older than Discolores. Besides, R. silesiacus cannot be the type of the Candicantes because Focke explicitly excludes it from this series.
Rubus procerus P.J.Müll. ex Boulay: Weber18 identifies R. praecox Bertoloni as an older synonym.
Investigations both in BOLO and by field research in the region of Bologna make clear that the specimen that Weber selected as lectotype is only an extreme form (that does not match the protologue) of a large group of plants that are intermediate between R. canescens and R. ulmifolius. A new lectotype that fits into the protologue is selected. R. praecox is identical to R. collinus DC and the old name R. procerus can be restored for the taxon in debate.
Hayneani Tratt.: because the included Rubus fruticosus L. is not a previously (art. 52.2) indicated type of the genus, the name is not illegitimate. The name Rhamnifolii Focke, which is also in use for this series, is incorrect because the protologue of R. rhamnifolius Weihe & Nees includes R. thuillieri Poir. ex Steud. This is not a reference to R. thuillieri sensu Steud. Rather the publication by Steudel is the validation of the nomen provisorium by Poiret as replacement for the later homonym R. tomentosus Thuill. (lectotype designated in this paper). The correct name of R. rhamnifolius auct. non Weihe & Nees is R. germanicus (Focke) Thomé.
Rubus bellardii Weihe. The reference to R. glandulosus in the protologue is not to the publication by Bellardi, but to R. glandulosus sensu Willd., sensu Hayne, and sensu Guimpel. Weihe52 indicates synonyms that are not misidentifications by page numbers of the original publication.
Saving current use of correct names The remark about Rubus opacus Focke ex Bertram by Focke5 does not match the requirements of art. 38.1a and 38.2 (it does not mention any characteristic wherein it is intermediate between R. affinis and R. plicatus, cf. 38.2 ex. 4). However, because Bertram6 includes Focke's plants in his description of R. opacus, the type can be chosen from these specimens (only the leaf of the previously selected lectotype, because the inflorescence is collected on another date), so that only a change of author name is required. Rubus bertramii G.Braun then is R. opacus Focke ex Bertram typ. excl.
Typification Rubus bergii Cham. & Schltdl. ex Eckl. & Zeyh. (= R. affinis Weihe & Nees) Rubus spina-curva Boulay & Gillot Rubus eglandulosus P.J.Müll. & Lefèvre Rubus splendidus P.J.Müll. & Lefèvre (= R. approximatus Questier ex Billot – lectotype designated in this paper) Serie Grandifolii Focke Rubus viridis Kalt. (= R. iuvenis A.Beek) Rubus rotundatiformis Sudre Rubus horrefactus P.J.Müll. & Lefèvre Rubus grandiflorus Kalt. (= R. parahebecarpus H.E.Weber; there is no reason to doubt the identity of the neotype in W).
Change of correct names Rubus umbrosus (Weihe & Nees) Arrh. is an older legitimate name for the ambiguous R. pyramidalis auct. an Kalt.? and must thus be considered as the correct name.
Rubus horrefactus P.J.Müll. & Lefèvre: according to comparison of the types and to intensive field research this species is taxonomically identical to R. tuberculatus Bab.
Different author Rubus conspicuus P.J.Müll. Müller58 must be considered as the author of this species and thus the type must be selected from his collection.
Rubus schleicheri Weihe. The publication of Trattinick49 of this species is a nomen provisorium (‘interim ipse designavi’).
Retypification Rubus flexuosus P.J.Müll. & Lefèvre. Because the protologue in the appendix includes R. pyramidalis sensu Questier, the exsiccate of Questier in Billot, Flora Galliae et Germaniae exsiccata nr. 2058, can be a lectotype, replacing the neotype by Weber.18 Rubus glareosus W.C.R.Watson. The previously selected type by Edees & Newton46 consisted of two specimens.
Identification Rubus leucandrus Focke, R. leucandrus subsp. belgicus H.E.Weber and R. ambigens (Boulay) Boulay (lectotype designated in this paper) turned out to be identical.
Correction The type of Rubus calvus H.E.Weber is not identical with R. calviformis H.E.Weber, but with R. contractipes H.E.Weber; the latter is thus a nomen superfluum.
Document typearticle
Download paperpdf document http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/567390