Rubus feddei Léveillé & Vaniot (1910: 549)

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 : 19

21. Rubus feddei Léveillé & Vaniot (1910: 549)

Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Kweichou [Guizhou]: Lo-Fou , March 1909, J. Cavalerie 3576 (barcode E00010594!, isolectotypes: A00040591!, K000737634!, P00755234!, P00755235!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010594] .

Note:—In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1910) cited one collection: “ J. Cavalerie 3576 ” 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). We locate five duplicate specimens, deposited in A (barcode 00040591), E (barcode 00010594), K (barcode 000737634), and P (barcode 00755234-00755235). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 ( Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in E (barcode 00010594) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.