Rubus parviflorus Tourn. ex Weston

Beek, Abraham Van De, 2016, Validations of the Rubus taxa in Tournefort’s Institutiones and their Corollarium in later literature, Adansonia 38 (1), pp. 35-53 : 48-50

c. Rubus parviflorus Tourn. ex Weston

In Botanicus universalis 1: 258 (1770). — Lectotype (hic designatus): Greece, Crete, Tournefort 6073 (P-TRF).

REMARK

Four years later, the species was once again described. This time by Weston. He used the description of Tournefort, but he did not use the same name as Linnaeus in 1756. He focused on another characteristic in the description: the small flowers. Therefore he gave the name R. parviflorus . The lectotype is the same as that of R. creticus , because it is related to the same description by Tournefort.

R. parviflorus Weston is a nomen superfluum ( McNeill et al. 2012: art. 52.1). Nevertheless, it is an older homonym of R. parviflorus Nutt. (Genera of North American Plants 1: 308 [1818]), the thimbleberry. Therefore the latter requires another correct name. The oldest legitimate synonym is Rubus nutkanus Moc. ex Seringe. This is thus the correct name of the species, as it has been used for a long time. Fortunately we can thus eliminate the strange name Rubus parviflorus for a species with almost the largest flowers of the genus.

The thimbleberry is common in parts of the USA and Canada. I will not elaborate on the nomenclature of all infraspecific taxa here. I think this should preferably be done by an American specialist who is well acquainted with the taxonomy of the species.

d. Rubus sacer Schreb. ex Pallas

REMARKS

Pallas (1797: 311) mentions a Rubus sacer Schreb. There is no species known which Schreber described under this name. Probably Pallas had the meaning of ‘sanctus’ in mind and erroneously wrote ‘sacer’. In any case, either as a nomen nudum or as an error or as a nomen superfluum, the name is not relevant for priority.

DISCUSSION

Hartmann (1767: 89) and Poiret (1804: 245) already identified R. creticus Tourn. and R. sanctus Schreb. , but took the latter as the correct name. This is, however, against the rules. The name R. creticus is later used by Prince (1831) and by Kitto (1844: 247), who deliberates whether it is not the same as R. sanctus .

The taxon is extensively discussed by Monasterio-Huelin & Weber (1996) under the name of Rubus sanctus Schreb. It would seem that we should simply replace that name with the older synonym R. creticus Tourn. ex L. The matter is, however, more complicated. Monasterio-Huelin & Weber state that the sample upon which Schreber based his name is atypical. The taxon which is presently commonly called Rubus sanctus usually has hairy anthers, distant hairs on the primocane and the axis, hairs on the upper side of the leaves, rather deep serrature and strong but not numerous hooked prickles on the flowering branch. These characteristics distinguish it from R. ulmifolius Schott.

When we check the four specimens collected on the journey to Crete for these characteristics, it becomes clear that Schreber’s plant does not have many hairs on the anthers. Actually, though one may find a few hairs on the anthers, they seem glabrous. The specimen of Tournefort also has glabrous anthers, while the one of Jussieu has some hairs. The upper side of the leaves is hairy, somewhat more so in Tournefort’s specimen than in the one of Schreber, but not as hairy as with plants from the Near East. The prickles on the floricane are rather slender in the Schreber specimen and thicker in that of Tournefort’s; the latter is similar to eastern specimens. None of the four collections has a primocane.

The conclusion must be that, as regards characteristics, they are all intermediate between ‘normal’ R. sanctus and R. ulmifolius . Another complication is that Schreber writes in his protologue that R. sanctus has white flowers. I have never seen R. sanctus with white flowers and Monolis Avramakis (Heraklion) assured me that he, too, had never seen a bramble with white flowers on Crete. Desfontaine (1808) writes in his description, based on his information in Paris, that R. sanctus has pink flowers and reddish anthers which fits the normal form. Perhaps Schreber just made a mistake. R. ulmifolius , sometimes (but rarely), has white flowers, but that taxon does not occur on Crete. Avramakis also ascertained that all the brambles which he saw on Crete did not have real hairs on their anthers, but rather some kind of fibers in various numbers. Of course, these fibers can be considered to be hairs.

I have seen many living specimens of both taxa in Western and Southern Europe, in Israel, Egypt, and South Africa, and in herbaria from the whole distribution area from the Scottish border to India, and I cannot find a single characteristic which consistently separates the two taxa in relation to geographical distribution. However, it is clear that they have common characteristics of which some are always present and others differ. The latter are the characteristics mentioned by Weber, to which one can add the color of the petals. In France, plants with hairy anthers can be found which are in all other aspects ‘normal’ R. ulmifolius , or in Greece with glabrous anthers, which look like the normal R. sanctus in Egypt. The same is applicable to all other characteristics. On the other hand, it is clear that the typical R. sanctus aspects normally occur in the East and those of R. ulmifolius usually in the West, and that the combination of these aspects in the same plant displays the same distribution. Generally, it can be said that the more ‘typical’ R. sanctus occurs more to the East, and the more ‘typical’ R. ulmifolius more to the North West. The plants in the collections of Tournefort, Jussieu, Vaillant and Schreber are intermediate. That of Tournefort with its hooked prickles and rather deep serrature of the leaves, appears at first sight to be typical R. sanctus , but lacks the hairs on the anthers. Jussieu’s plant is more the reverse and that of Schreber is even more like R. ulmifolius .

All these observations bring me to the conclusion that we must consider both taxa as one species with a Western and an Eastern subspecies with transitions which, especially on the Balkan and on the Greek islands , must be identified according to the whole population in which they occur. In that case the plants of Crete must be considered to be the Eastern subspecies, because according to my own observation and the confirmation by Avramakis the normal type on Crete is Eastern. Thus the specimens of the seventeenth century collectors must be interpreted in this context .

CORRECT NAMES AND SYNONYMY

Finally we come to the correct nomenclature. The oldest legitimate name of the species is R. creticus Tourn. ex L. That should be the correct name for the species according to the rules. In that case the Western subspecies should be named R. creticus ssp. rusticanus (Mercier) X, because ‘rusticanus’ is the oldest epithet on subspecies level. There are some early synonyms on species level as well. Rubus inermis Pourret is just a thornless form ( Beek 1979). Though Monasterio-Huelin & Weber (1996) did not accept the identity of R. inermis arguing that it might be a hybrid, there is no reason to think so. One could also argue that the lectotype of R. ulmifolius is a possible hybrid. Moreover, though the type in MAF has only rather young flowers, the syntype in P clearly has young fruits which are not defective. Thus there is no reason to consider it a hybrid.

SYNONYMY

The formal synonymy thus would be:

Rubus creticus Tourn. ex L. = R. parviflorus Weston

R. sanctus Schreb.

R. ulmifolius ssp. anatolicus Focke

ssp. rusticanus (Mercier) X

R. inermis Pourret

R. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) Tollard

R. ulmifolius Schott

Further synonyms in Monasterio-Huelin & Weber 1996.

If one chose to separate both taxa as two species, the correct name of the ssp. rusticanus should be R. inermis Poiret , because this is the oldest certain legitimate name.

Application of the rules would have great impact on the nomenclature of one of the most well-known Rubus species. R. ulmifolius has been split into many infraspecific taxa and a change of its name would cause enormous confusion both in literature and in collections. Therefore I will submit a proposal