Abstract
Beek (2016) argued that Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston was the correct name of the taxon that was then called R. canescens DC., and which was previously known as R. tomentosus Borkh. Moreover, R. canescens was stated to be not identical with R. aetnicus, but rather a form of R. × collinus DC. Matzke‐Hajek (2016) raised objections to both statements. Therefore, the aim of this study was to thoroughly analyse both names and support this analysis with field work at the type localities and by DNA data. Despite the correspondence at the investigated conservative DNA loci, the investigation showed that the two species are morphologically different and must be conceived as separate taxa. According to the rules of the ICN, R. aetnicus, as the earliest available legitimate name, must be accepted as the correct name for R. tomentosus auct. non Borkh. There is no reason not to use the name R. aetnicus, which has not been commonly used until now. It is unambiguous, while any other name could cause confusion if it would be conserved. Other scientific names clarified in this study are R. aetnaeus Tornab. (= R. ulmifolius Schott), R. aetnensis Tornab. (= R. aetnicus) and R. argenteus Gmel.
Highlights
In his Hortus Catholicus, Cupani (1696: 193) published a bramble species with the phrase: ‘Rubus minor, Alpinus, Etnicus, rectus, canescens, candido flore.’. This description was used by Weston (1770: 258), who validated the name Rubus aetnicus
Beek (2016: 40) selected a type from Cupani’s Panphyton (Cupani 1713: Tab. 61) and identified the taxon as R. canescens sensu H.E.Weber (1989), which was, according to his analysis, not identical with R. canescens DC. (De Candolle 1815: 545). He suggested a proposal for conservation of the name R. tomentosus Willd. (Willdenow 1799: 1083) non Borkh. (Borkhausen 1794a: 108) to establish a stable correct name for this taxon
The publication in Flore de France (De Candolle 1815) is certainly valid. The former referred to localities at Vinadio in Italy and specimens in the botanical garden, while the latter only referred to the plant of Vinadio
Summary
In his Hortus Catholicus, Cupani (1696: 193) published a bramble species with the phrase: ‘Rubus minor, Alpinus, Etnicus, rectus, canescens, candido flore.’ This description was used by Weston (1770: 258), who validated the name Rubus aetnicus. Beek (2016: 40) selected a type from Cupani’s Panphyton (Cupani 1713: Tab. 61) and identified the taxon as R. canescens sensu H.E.Weber (1989), which was, according to his analysis, not identical with R. canescens DC. (De Candolle 1815: 545). In his Hortus Catholicus, Cupani (1696: 193) published a bramble species with the phrase: ‘Rubus minor, Alpinus, Etnicus, rectus, canescens, candido flore.’ This description was used by Weston (1770: 258), who validated the name Rubus aetnicus. Matzke-Hajek (2016) commented on these identifications, demonstrating uncertainty that the drawing in the Panphyton and the phrase in the Hortus Catholicus refer to the same taxon and that the former does not display the typical R. canescens sensu.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
