(2963) Proposal to reject the name Rubus pseudoidaeus (Rosaceae)

Abstract

(2963) Rubus pseudoidaeus F.W. Schmidt in Neue Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss. 1: 37. 1790, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Van de Beek in Gorteria 39: 52. 2017): “Rubus schmidtianus Presl / R. pseudoidaeus Schmidt. fl. boh. / In sepibus ad Moldavam superiorem” (PRC). Rubus pseudoidaeus F.W. Schmidt (in Neue Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss. 1: 37. 1790) is a very early published name of a European Rubus species. Van de Beek (in Gorteria 39: 52. 2017) argued that it is a heterotypic earlier synonym of Rubus sulcatus Vest (in Steiermärk. Z. 3: 162. 1821), a well-known species with a wide distribution. The name Rubus pseudoidaeus F.W. Schmidt has never been used in later literature, while R. sulcatus was accepted by Trattinnick (Rosac. Monogr. 3: 42. 1823), and has subsequently been used by all experts in the genus Rubus, especially after Focke (Syn. Rub. Germ.: 119. 1877) acknowledged its identity. Rubus sulcatus is not just one of the many Rubus taxa with a limited local or regional distribution. It is one of the few European taxa found in all temperate regions of Europe, including the British Islands (Kurtto & al., Atlas Fl. Eur.: 52. 2010). These obviously old taxa are not only of interest for their distribution but also for understanding the propagation processes within Rubus. They have very similar taxa along the type of which the origin is unclear. Much research on this topic is still ahead, and stability in nomenclature is even more critical in such a situation. The epithet ‘pseudoidaeus’ has been in general use for a totally different taxon: the hybrid of Rubus caesius L. and R. idaeus L., first at the rank of variety (Weihe in Boenninghausen, Prodr. Fl. Monast. Westphal.: 151. 1824), and soon as a species (Schlechtendahl in Linnaea 8: 315. 1833) (usually botanists, e.g., Weber, Rubi Westphalici: 426. 1985, refer to Lejeune [Rev. Fl. Spa: 102. 1825] as the author, but that publication does only refer to an unpublished [“ined.”] name of a specimen). Because changing the well-known name Rubus sulcatus to R. pseudoidaeus, which has never been in use for this taxon since its publication in 1790, would cause much confusion, Van de Beek (in Gorteria 39: 52. 2017) suggested submitting a proposal for the conservation of the name R. sulcatus. However, the taxa of Rubus ser. Rubus, to which R. sulcatus belongs, have relatively few distinctive characters, and such similar – but not identical – taxa as indicated above, were found in the precise region of the type locality of R. pseudoidaeus F.W. Schmidt, such as R. altissimus Fritsch (in Hayek, Sched. Fl. Stiriac. 5–6: 11. 1905) and R. barrandienicus Holub & Palek (in Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 26: 332. 1991), so that, eventually, it might turn out that R. pseudoidaeus is not identical with R. sulcatus. Therefore, to avoid any imminent or future confusion, we propose rejecting outright the name Rubus pseudoidaeus F.W. Schmidt. AvdB, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6728-9572 DD, https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3976-1020 HDV, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4011-8225 TG, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7692-8348 EvdH, https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6578-1509 RH, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9127-4549 MH, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3880-9417 GK, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-2616 PK, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6104-4267 GM-H, https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6093-8768 KM, https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5113-461X DPM, https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2308-0783 IdR, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6008-6956 UR, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7653-8489 BT, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4596-2476