Rubus sativus (L.H. Bailey) Clark

Van de Beek, Abraham & Widrlechner, Mark P., 2021, North American species of Rubus L. (Rosaceae) described from European botanical gardens (1789 - 1823), Adansonia (3) 43 (8), pp. 1789-1823 : 77

Rubus sativus (L.H. Bailey) Clark

Contributions from the United States National Herbarium 1: 159 ( Clark 1892). — Rubus villosus var. sativus , The American Garden 11: 719 ( Bailey 1890).

— Neotype (here designated) (selected by James L. Reveal, 2013): BH, Garden Herbarium of the Cornell University Experiment Station, Rubus nigrobaccus sativus β, Arbutus farm near Ithaca, 26.V.1894, L.H. Bailey (neo-, BH [ BH 000 092 458 ]) ( Fig. 5 ).

FINDINGS

The same taxon that was first described as R. vulpinus Poir. was published again as R. villosus var. sativus L.H. Bailey ( Bailey 1890: 719) ; neotype designated here: BH 000 092 458 ( Fig.5 ).

As Bailey himself argued later ( Bailey 1944: 512-514; 1945: 823), this is only a form of R. allegheniensis , as confirmed by the type in Bailey’s herbarium. Rubus villosus var. sativus was raised to species rank by Clark (1892: 159); in the next year, she reconsidered her decision ( Clark 1893: 264), but this does not invalidate the earlier publication. Koehne (1895: 98) supported its treatment at the species level. Consequently R. sativus (L.H. Bailey) Clark is a later synonym of R. vulpinus and an earlier synonym of R. allegheniensis . Because Bailey (1898: 379) included R. villosus var. sativus in the protologue of R. nigrobaccus , the latter is typified by the type of R. sativus and so it is a homotypic synonym of the latter (ICN, Turland et al. 2018: art. 52.2 e). The sequence of priority for the correct name is thus R. vulpinus ( Poiret 1804) , R. sativus ( Clark 1892) , R. allegheniensis ( Porter 1896) , R. nigrobaccus ( Bailey 1898) . Brainerd (1900: 26) used the name R. sativus for another taxon, but because he based his name on R. villosus var. sativus Bailey , this name is merely an isonym of R. sativus (L.H. Bailey) Clark.

The history of the name can be summarized as follows: a plant from North America was planted in Kew Gardens in 1777 ( Aiton 1811: 269). It was named (but not published) Rubus villosus by Solander. A piece was dried and conserved in the herbarium at Kew, now in BM. A second collection was sent to De Candolle, which is now in G-DC. Aiton (1789) formally published this species in the catalogue of Kew Gardens, based on the type in Kew. French botanists in Paris incorrectly assumed that this species was the same as a plant in their botanical garden, which had been named (but not published) R. vulpinus by Jussieu. Due to taxonomic doubt about its identity, Poiret published R. vulpinus as a valid name. However, this confusion continued in the work of later authors until Bailey consulted the type in BM. He rightly concluded that the specimen belonged to a different section than that of R. vulpinus , which, however, he recognized under the name R. allegheniensis . That name has been in common use since the early 20TH century for the widespread highbush blackberry which is R. vulpinus .

The identity of R. villosus remained obscure and often is considered irrelevant because it is an illegitimate, later homonym of R. villosus Thunb. Its valid replacement name, R. serratus J.F. Gmel. , has long been neglected but now must replace the later synonym, R. leviculus .

Figures

FIG. 5. — Rubus sativus (L.H. Bailey) Clark neotype, L.H. Bailey (BH[BH 000 092 458]). Scale bar: 2 cm.