Rubus alnifoliolatus Léveillé & Vaniot (1906: 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 : 14

2. Rubus alnifoliolatus Léveillé & Vaniot (1906: 549)

Type (lectotype designated here):— TAIWAN. Formose : lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 June 1903, U.J. Fauire 132 (barcode E00010563!, isolectotypes: A00040525!, G00437170!, P00755172!, P00755173!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010563] .

Note:—In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1906) cited one collection: “Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 juin 1903; U.J. Fauire 132 ” 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 duplicates, deposited in A (barcode 00040525), E (barcode 00010563), G (barcode 00437170), and P (barcode 00755172- 00755173). 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 00010563) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.