Rubus flagelliflorus Focke (1900: 393)

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

22. Rubus flagelliflorus Focke (1900: 393)

Lectotype (first step, designated by Lu & Boufford 2003; second step designated here):— CHINA. Hupeh [Hubei], Wu Shan, A. Henry5416 (barcode K000737756!, isolectotypes: K000737757!, K000737759!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737756].

Note:—In the protologue, Focke (1900) cited the following locality information: “Wu Shan (A. Henry 5416)”, but did not indicate where the type preserved. Tropicos (2022) lists “ A. Henry5416 ” as the type (K?) [first step], with reference to the Flora of China ( Lu & Boufford 2003). We located six duplicates, five of them deposited in K (barcode K000737756, K000737757, K000737758, K000737759, K000737760), and one in US (barcode 01107660). It is well known that Focke’ original type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W ( Stafleu & Cowan 1979). Among the available collections, the sheets in K (barcode K000737758, K000737760), and US (barcode 01107660) collected from Sichuan, however it cannot be selected as lectotype, because in the original protologue cited “Wu Shan”. Wu Shan, mountain range on the border between Hubei province and Chongqing municipality, central China. While the sheets in K (barcode K000737756, K000737757, K000737759) bear the correct type locality, Wu Shan [Hubei], it is necessary to select one of them as lectotype [second step] (Art. 9.17 of ICN). Hence, we designate here the specimen in K (barcode K000737756) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.