Rubus adenophorus Rolfe (1910: 382)

Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), Phytotaxa 559 (1), pp. 13-24 : 14

1. Rubus adenophorus Rolfe (1910: 382) ,

[ Rubus sagatus Focke (1911b: 198) nom. superfl.]

Type ( lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Western Hupeh. , Chang lo Hsien, thickets, 3000 feet, 1907-09, E.H. Wilson 81 (barcode K000737866!, isolectotypes: A00112764!, C10017923!, LE01015325 !, LE01015346 !, NY00429661 !). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737866] .

Note:— Rolfe (1910) cited one collection from China: “ Wilson 81 ” in the protologue, when he described Rubus adenophorus but did not indicate the herbarium where the specimen was deposited. Later, Focke (1911b) described a new species Rubus sagatus Focke (1911b: 198) , and cited the same specimen “ Wilson 81 ” collected from China. Consequently, Rubus sagatus is an illegitimate superfluous name for Rubus adenophorus (Art. 52.1 of the ICN). We located 5 duplicate specimens, deposited in A (barcode 00112764), K (barcode 00429685), LE (barcode 01015325 & 01015346), and NY (barcode 00429661). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes ( ICN; Art. 9.6, Turland et al. 2018). Hence, we designate here the sheet “ E.H. Wilson 81 ” kept in K (barcode 000737866), as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of the ICN). The selected sheet is complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and fruit that fully correspond with the protologue.