Rubus pappei Ecklon & Zeyher (1836: 263)

Beek, Abraham Van De, 2021, Rubi Capenses: a further contribution to the knowledge of the genus Rubus (Rosaceae) in South Africa, Phytotaxa 515 (1), pp. 1-71 : 14-15

3. Rubus pappei Ecklon & Zeyher (1836: 263) .

Lectotype (designated here):— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: ‘ In dumetis prope Rondebosch’, 1833, Pappe s.n. (BREM_0002212)

Note on lectotype: —A specimen collected by Pappe was selected as the lectotype. The protologue mentions only localities in the Eastern Cape, but the labels of Ecklon & Zeyher are notoriously imprecise. Because Zeyher cooperated with Pappe in the time when both were in Cape Town, he would probably have seen Pappe’s specimen, which the epithet also indicates. This specimen is well defined, with a precise locality and corresponds with other specimens that were collected in that region. The localities on the label of Ecklon & Zeyher might refer to their own collections, which they considered identical with Pappe’s plant.

Heterotypic synonyms:— Rubus cumingii Gandoger (1918: 24) . Type: Cuming 2455 (holotype LY [https://herbier2014.univ-lyon1.fr/ fiche/8574], isotypes BREM_00002217, L.1918961, L.1918962, P00682403 , P00682406 , P04203582 ).

? Rubus heterophyllus E.Mey. ex Meisner (1843: 527) , non Willdenow (1811: 413). Lectotype (designated here):— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: ‘2452. … In den Wäldern im Voormansbosch und Grootvadersbosch, October’, Zeyher 2452 ( LY [https://herbier2014. univ-lyon1.fr/fiche/8576]) . Syntype:— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: ‘2452. Flora Capensis. Rubus pinnatus Wild. Swellendam. In sylvaticis montium ad Puspasvalei, Duyvelsbosch. Octobris. Legit Zeyher. Communicavit Drège’, Zeyher 2452 ( P02579472 [https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p02579472]) .

? Rubus zeyheri Gandoger (1918: 25) . Type:— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: ‘2452. … In den Wäldern im Voormansbosch und Grootvadersbosch. October’, Zeyher 2452 (holotype LY [https://herbier2014.univ-lyon1.fr/fiche/8576]).

Flowering branch bluntly angular, densely very short hairy; prickles 4–14 per 5 cm, unequal, from 1–5 mm broad base compressed, curved, up to 3–5 mm long; stipules lanceolate, 7–9 mm. Leaves pinnate 5- to 7-foliolate, adaxially with strigose hairs, sometimes almost glabrous, abaxially with long white hairs on nerves; serrature narrow, irregular, deep, very sharp, with long more or less upward directed mucros; central leaflet 29–55 mm long, ovate or rhombic, with an attenuate, rounded or subemarginate base, acute or gradually attenuate into short to moderate tip, width–length index 0.54–0.71, length of petiolule (12–)17–28% of length of leaflet; petiolule of lowest leaflets 1(–4) mm. Inflorescence narrow cylindrical, with long appressed and stellate hairs, with rather many declining or curved prickles; peduncles with sharp angle, with up to 4 flowers; pedicels 1–6 mm, short tomentose and with long hairs, with few to numerous prickles and some sessile glands. Flowers: sepals narrow, long pointed, 2–4 × 5–11 mm, loosely patent or erect, greyish, tomentose and hairy, sometimes with few prickles and subsessile glands; petals 3–4 mm; anthers glabrous; ovaries with a few hairs; receptacle almost glabrous or with some hairs.

Distribution: —Common on St. Helena; in South Africa only some old collections near Cape Town and maybe Swellendam, Western Cape.

Specimens:— SAINT HELENA. Cuming 2453 (BREM_00002220); 1841, Hombron s.n. (P02579475).

— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: ‘ Cape pen. July [?] 1924’, J.C. Smuts s.n. (NBG). ‘Inter frutices (altit. I, II) nemorum in “Krakakamma et Adow,” tum ad “Zwartehoogdes” et “Katrivier” (Uytenhage, Albany)’, s.d., Ecklon & Zeyher 1706 (P02579473) [it is not certain where this specimen was collected].

Notes: —The material of R. pappei that Ecklon & Zeyher distributed under the number 1706 is not homogeneous. The specimens in P (P02579473), BREM (BREM-0002214) and the short inflorescences in L (L 0019831), are identical with the R. pinnatus in B-W. The long inflorescences in L are R. glaber Cordemoy (1895: 407) , while the sample in B (with handwritten label by Zeyher,) represents R. pinnatus . Because the first form corresponds best with the protologue (‘ramis …cano-tomentosis …foliis … subtus breve pilosis rugoso-nervosis’), the specimen in BREM was selected as the lectotype.

Meisner (1843: 527) published another species from South Africa under the name ‘ Rubus heterophyllus E.Meyer ! in herb. Drège’. There is no valid publication of this name by Meyer. The name is also not in Drège (1839), nor in Drège (1843). Consequently, the comparison with R. pinnatus by Meisner (1843) is the validating description and the species must be cited as R. heterophyllus E.Mey. ex Meisner.

In his description, Meisner (1843) states that R. heterophyllus differs from R. pinnatus ‘in having the leaves pubescent underneath’. There are specimens determined as R. heterophyllus E.Mey. in the Drège collections in P and in K (P02579458, K000312557 ‘R. heterophylla’). Both are samples of R. affinis and have no similarity with R. pinnatus . Thus, these cannot be the plant that Meisner had on his desk. Fortunately, there is another reference to R. heterophyllus by Drège (1847b: 648): ‘E.Z. Rubus pinnatus W. = D. R. heterophyllus E.M. a = Z. I, 2452 (70.10)’. Specimens with the number 2452 are in LY and P. They are inflorescences with pinnate and abaxially hairy leaves, thus corresponding well with the description of R. heterophyllus by Meisner (1843) and can be considered as the taxon, which he meant. It was collected by Zeyher near Swellendam in October. The year is not mentioned (as is usual with Zeyher’s collections), but this must be 1831 when Zeyher collected at that location in October. Another sample with the same number 2452 is also conserved in P (P02579478). It does not have an original label, but only a printed tag with the name ‘Coll. De Zeyher 1847’. This is obviously not the collection date, but the date that Drège revisited Zeyher’s herbarium.

Drège (1847b: 648) continues his comments on R. heterophyllus with: ‘Hierzu auch E.Z. R. pappei E.Z. = R. heterophyllus E.M. b’. Thus, he identifies R. heterophyllus with R. pappei .

Because the protologue of R. heterophyllus is earlier than Drège’s comments, the type of R. pappei is not included in it. Consequently, both names are heterotypic and a separate type of R. heterophyllus must be selected. The specimen of Zeyher 2452 in LY with the original label was chosen for this, while the other specimens are syntypes, then.

Rubus heterophyllus E.Mey. ex Meisner is a later homonym of R. heterophyllus Willdenow [1811: 413 = R. plicatifolius Blanchard (1906: 149) , see Beek & Widrlechner (2021)], of R. heterophyllus Host (1831: 32) , and of R. heterophyllus Hegetschweiler (1839: 486) .

Gandoger (1918: 25) published the specimen Zeyher 2452 once again under the name R. zeyheri . This is a legitimate name for the taxon. That makes the remark by Drège (1847b) that R. heterophyllus is identical with R. pappei of special interest, for the question is now whether R. zeyheri , which is identical with R. heterophyllus , is also identical with R. pappei or not. Both have abaxially hairy leaves. However, the prickles are less numerous and the leaves weaker and less hairy, but this may be due to a shady location. As long as no other material is found, the decision must be left open. Maybe field research around Swellendam might give more clarity.