Rubus innominatus var. kuntzeanus (Hemsley) Bailey (1920: 30)

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 : 16

10. Rubus innominatus var. kuntzeanus (Hemsley) Bailey (1920: 30)

≡ Rubus kuntzeanus Hemsley (1887: 232)

Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Hupeh (Hubei): Ichang & immediate neighbourhood, and Patung district . A. Henry 1536 (barcode K000737844!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/ K000737844] .

= Rubus adenocalyx Cardot (1917: 311)

Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Su-Tchuen [Sichuan] Oriental: district de Tchen-keou-tin, Farges s.n. (barcode P00755175!, isolectotypes: P00755176!, P00755177!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/ catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755175] .

Note:— In the protologue, Hemsley (1887) provided the following information: “ China Hupeh (Hubei): Ichang & immediate neighbourhood, and Patung district. A. Henry! ” as the type (K). We traced two original materials of R. kuntzeanus Hemsley , one of them (A. Henry 1536) deposited in K (barcode 000737844), and the other materials of (A. Henry 1840) deposited in K (barcode 000737843). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN), and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the blooming specimen “ A. Henry 1536 ” in K (barcode 000737844) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue .

For Rubus adenocalyx, Cardot (1917) mentioned the following locality information: “SU-TCHUEN ORIENTAL: district de Tchen-keou-tin [Farges s.n.]” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). Three original materials were traced in P (barcode 00755175-00755177). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 ( Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but they are syntypes and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.17). We designate here the blooming specimen “ Farges s.n. ” in P (barcode 00755175) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits that fully correspond with the protologue.