Rubus vulgaris Tournefort ex Vries

Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo & Beek, Abraham Van De, 2021, On Rubus ulmifolius (Rosaceae) and related taxa, Phytotaxa 523 (2), pp. 155-166 : 157-158

Rubus vulgaris Tournefort ex Vries bis (1779: 196)

Lectotype (designated by Van de Beek (2016: 36): [illustration] “ Rubus ” in Matthioli in Commentarii secundo aucti (1559: 507). Ind. Loc: not indicated.

Epitype (designated here): Italy, Valgrisanche (Aosta), ca. 900 m, 03 Jul 1961, Van Ooststroom 22933 ( L, 2-D code L.1907626) ( Fig. 1 ) .

Another name which is relevant for the nomenclature of R. ulmifolius is R. vulgaris J.de Vries bis (1779: 196). Matzke-Hajek (2016) argued that this name would be not validly published because it is not in a scientific publication and the text is only a translation of Valmont de Bomare (1765) which does not use binary nomenclature consistently and consequently is not validly published. However, De Vries presents his book as a scientific commentary on Martinet’s catechism, and moreover, though it is recommended to not publish in popular papers or books (ICN Art. 30A.4, Turland et al. 2018), it is not forbidden, and a translation of an invalidly published text does not cause that also this translation is invalid if accepted by the author who uses it; many invalidly published texts serve as validating description by later authors. Rubus vulgaris is validly published as such. It is also clear that neither De Vries (who refers to Tournefort and to Duhamel [1768] in his book) nor Valmont thought out the name R. vulgaris themselves but adapted to common use, as many authors of that time refer to R. vulgaris Bauh. (see Bauhin 1623: 479).

The type of R. vulgaris was designated by Van de Beek (2016: 36) and it is an illustration published in the Matthioli’s Commentarii secundo aucti (1559: 507). Though this picture is not very precise, it can, because of the strong prickles and rigid inflorescences, hardly be anything else than R. ulmifolius , the most common blackberry in Italy where Matthioli lived. However, the drawing does not give precise details so that it is not of a quality to identify it without knowing the broader context. Consequently, for a precise identification of this name an epitype is selected according to ICN Art. 9.9 (see Turland et al. 2018). This material, a complete specimen, with leaves and welldeveloped flowers ( Fig. 1 ), clearly represents the traditional concept (e.g., J. de Vries bis 1779: 196) and current use and application of R. vulgaris as a synonym of R. ulmifolius ( Van de Beek 2016) .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Epitype of Rubus vulgaris J.de Vries bis (L, 2-D code L.1907626). Image courtesy of the herbarium L, reproduced with permission.