Rubus affinis Weihe & Nees (1822: 18)

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 : 54-55

28. Rubus affinis Weihe & Nees (1822: 18) .

Lectotype (designated by Beek 1974: 63):— GERMANY. Weihe, Rubus affinis nr. 1 ( MSTR)

Heterotypic synonyms:— Rubus fastigiatus var. bergii Chamisso & Schlechtendal (1827: 16) ; R. bergii (Cham. & Schltdl.) Ecklon & Zeyher (1836: 262) ; Neotype (designated by Beek 2014b: 176):— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: Doornhoogde, “Flora capensis. Dornhoogde. In planitie capensi. Junio. Legit Zeyher. Communicavit Drejer” (P). The holotype in B is probably destroyed in 1943.

Rubus vigorosus Müller & Wirtgen in Wirtgen (1860: 118). Lectotype (designated by Weber 1986: 106):— GERMANY. Zwischen Hillscheid und Ĥhr, 1.Juli 1859, Wirtgen Herb. Rub. rhen. 2: no. 53 (JE).

Pictures: —https://rubus-nederland.nl/nl/soorten/systematische-namenlijst/21-braam-genus-rubus-l/braam-subgenus-rubus/zwarte-braam-sectie-rubus/staande-braam-subsectie-rubus/koepelbraam-serie-semisuberecti-focke-ex-a-beek/27-r-affinis-weihe-nees

Primocane high arching, diam. 4–9 mm, angular with flat or somewhat concave sides, reddish brown in sun, glabrous; prickles 3–15 per 5 cm with 4–7 mm large, usually red base, compressed, usually abruptly attenuate into narrow tip, patent, declining or slightly curved, up to 7–10 mm long; stipules linear, 13–18 mm. Leaves 5-foliolate or sometimes with divided central leaflet 6- to 7-foliolate, adaxially with some appressed hairs, abaxially almost glabrous to rather densely hairy and sometimes slightly grey tomentose; serrature irregular but usually not clearly periodical, with sharp straight or seldom slightly curved teeth; petiole 5–10 mm, slightly hairy, with 7–17 curved or hooked prickles; central leaflet 52–131 mm, ovate with cordate base, gradually to rather abruptly attenuate into long, often curved tip, width–length index 0.62–0.83, length of petiolule 21–46% of length of leaflet; petiolule of the basal leaflets 0–4 mm. Flowering branch angular, glabrous or slightly pilose; prickles 1–3 per 5 cm, with ± 5 mm wide base, abruptly attenuate, strongly compressed, patent, declining or curved, sometimes with abruptly curved tip, 3–8 mm long. Inflorescence loosely irregular pyramidal, cylindric or racemose, usually leafy, with long prickles; peduncles ascendant, with 1–4 flowers; pedicels 10–30 mm, loosely pilose, with 0–3 prickles. Flowers: sepals green or greyish green with white margin, reflexed, usually unarmed; petals white or pale pink, broad ovate or suborbicular, 7–11 mm long; stamens much longer than styles; anthers glabrous or with some hairs; styles green or sometimes reddish; ovaries (almost) glabrous; receptacle hairy.

Ecology: —Roadsides, hedges.

Distribution in South Africa: —Common in the hill and mountain regions of the southern part of the Western Cape. More scattered in the rest of the Western Cape and in the Eastern Cape. Also at some places in northern KwaZulu-Natal.

Specimens:— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: Skoongesig, Ceres , 13 January 1968, Hanekom 1037 ( PRE) ; Ceres , January 1930, Thode A2236 ( PRE) ; Wellington, 9 August 1982, Knobel s.n. ( PRE) ; Elsenburg , October 1903, Marloth 3304 ( PRE) ; Tafelberg, Disa Gorge , 12.1921, Marloth 11046 ( PRE) ; Cape Town, Rhodes Estate , 30 November 1980, Stirton 8429 ( PRE) ; Claremont, October 1916, Paje , s.n. ( PRE) ; Franschhoek Pas , 1 March 2009, Beek 2009.10 ( L) ; Franschhoek , 29 December 1938, Louw 180 ( PRE) ; Hugosberg , 22 November 1980, Stirton 8294 ( PRE) ; Swartbergpass , 19 January 1991, Henderson 1110 ( PRE) ; Prins Alfred’s Pass , between Avontuur and Kruisvallei, 1 March 1990, Henderson 1058 ( PRE) ; Knysna, Diepwalle , December1923, Phillips 218 A ( PRE) ; Knysna , December 1922, Keet 1088 ( PRE) ; Knysna, 1919, Schoonland 3492 ( PRE) ; Near bank of Knysna River , February 1926; Duthie 1030 ( NBG) ; Nature’s Valley , 4 March 2009, Beek 2009.11 ( L) . Eastern Cape: Hogsback , 13 February 1943, Giffen 1351, ( PRE) ; Hogsback, on the road to King William’s Town , 7 March 2012, Jaca 418 ( PRE) ; Keiskammahoek , 15 January 1948, Story 3286 ( PRE) ; About 20 km from Seymour towards Upper Chilton near Strathire , 9 March 1988, Henderson 934 ( PRE) ; Road from Sudu to Seymour , 28 January 1995, Victor and Hoare 429 ( PRE) .

Notes: — Rubus affinis was introduced from Europe very early. It was already present in the Stellenbosch region in the beginning of the 19 th century. Chamisso & Schlechtendal (1827) described plants from South Africa as R. fastigiatus var. bergii . Ecklon & Zeyher (1836) raised it to species level. The same taxon was described in Europe as R. affinis by Weihe & Nees (1822).

The identity of both taxa was discovered recently ( Beek 2014 a, 2014b). Weber (1986) replaced the name R. affinis by R. vigorosus . This replacement was based on a misinterpretation of the Code (see Beek 2014a), but most European botanists followed Weber (1986) because of his authority, until the mistake was clarified. When the identity of the European species with R. bergii had become clear, Sochor et al. (2018) concluded that the latter should be the correct name, because it is older than R. vigorosus . However, because the name R. affinis is not illegitimate and earlier than R. bergii , this is the correct one.

Much confusion exists about the name R. fruticosus Linnaeus (1753: 493) . The conserved type (LINN 653.9) is a specimen of what is presently called R. plicatus Weihe & Nees (1822: 15) . Formally the name R. fruticosus is the correct one and should be used ( Beek 1974). Because this name is also used for the whole complex of the blackberries in Europe and North America, much confusion is caused when it is also adopted for one of the microspecies. Therefore, European batologists use the name R. plicatus for it.

Rubus plicatus differs from R. affinis especially by weaker prickles in the inflorescences (2–4 mm vs. 3–8 mm), patent concave sepals, and short stamens. It does not occur in South Africa. When the name R. fruticosus was used for South African plants in the past, it was based on misidentifications. Even if one would not follow the European batologists and opt for the name R. fruticosus instead of R. plicatus , this will not be relevant for South African plants.