Rubus creticus Tournefort ex Linnaeus (1756: 15)

Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo & Beek, Abraham Van De, 2021, On Rubus ulmifolius (Rosaceae) and related taxa, Phytotaxa 523 (2), pp. 155-166 : 156-157

Rubus creticus Tournefort ex Linnaeus (1756: 15)

Lectotype (designated by Van de Beek 2016: 46): Greece, Crete, Tournefort 6073 (P-TRF, 2-D code P00680425 ).

Rubus sanctus Schreber (1766: 15) , nom. superfl. (Art. 52.3, Turland et al. 2018)

Rubus parviflorus Weston (1770: 258) , nom superfl. (Art. 52.3)

A problem for the nomenclatural stability of R. ulmifolius is its relation with R. creticus Linnaeus (1756: 15) . The name is validated from a description published by Tournefort (1703). The discussion starts with a debate on validity. Goldman (2019) argues that R. creticus is not validly published because Linnaeus remarks ‘nondum vero determinatas, litteris cursivis’. Goldman interprets this so that Linnaeus does not accept the names in italics. The phrase is confusing, indeed. However, it means that the names were not identified before, so that they are new names. The same confusion might be the cause that none of the names in italics from Flora Palaestina are treated as valid by Jarvis (2007).

The same taxon was published again as R. sanctus Schreber (1766: 15) and as R. parviflorus Weston (1770: 258) . The publication of R. parviflorus is based on the description by Tournefort and thus this name is homotypic with R. creticus . Because Schreber based his description on a plant at M (see Van de Beek 2016) Monasterio-Huelin & Weber (1996) indicated this as the “ holotype ” of R. sanctus , but because Schreber included an illustration in the protologue the specimen at M should rather be treated as lectotype. However, because Schreber included the phrase name (or nomen specificum legitimum) “ Rubus creticus , triphyllo, flore parvo” of Tournefort (1703: 43) which is the validating description of R. creticus , is R. sanctus an illegitimate name under Art. 52.3 ( Turland et al. 2018) and a superfluous homonym of the latter. So R. creticus , R. sanctus and R. parviflorus are homotypic.

Some batologists argue that R. ulmifolius and R. creticus are subspecies of the same species ( Focke 1902: 504 [as R. ulmifolius ssp. anatolicus Focke ]; Sudre 1908 -1913: 76; Juzepczuk 1941: 24; Parsa 1948: 105; Van de Beek 2016: 46). None of these authors has drawn the conclusion that according to the rules R. ulmifolius should be an infraspecific taxon of R. sanctus , probably because of the popularity of the former. Moreover, R. ulmifolius will become a subspecies of R. creticus . This will lead to new combinations if R. ulmifolius is divided in smaller unities as some authors have done, and to numerous new hybrid formulas because R. ulmifolius crosses frequently with other species.