Rubus vulpinus Poir., 1804

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 : 72-77

Rubus vulpinus Poir.

In Encyclopédie méthodique, botanique, 6: 273 ( Poiret 1804).

LECTOTYPE (here designated). — “ Rubus vulpinus H.R.P.; Rubus villosus? Aiton. Michaux. ”, Poiret in Herb. Moquin-Tandon., Herb. Cosson/ Herb. Durand. (lecto-, P [ P03141718 ]).

FINDINGS

Considerable confusion ensued during the 19TH century in the possible relationship between R. villosus Aiton and another New World blackberry cultivated at the botanical garden in Paris. Jussieu, followed by other botanists allied to the botanical garden in Paris, gave this plant, which was cultivated there since at least 1765, the year of their oldest specimen (Herb. Jussieu 14334), the name Rubus vulpinus . However, the botanists in Paris did not publish it validly in the 18TH century. The first effective publication was by St. Germain (1784: 155), who mentioned R. vulpinus Jussieu within a list, creating a nomen nudum. Incidentally, St. Germain’s book did not consistently use binominal nomenclature.

Morel (1800: 68) listed the name in the Tableau of the botanical garden of Paris and again in the edition of 1801. In a later edition of this list, Desfontaines (1804: 178; also Desfontaines 1809: 107) identified R. vulpinus with R. villosus Aiton. He mentioned the name as a mere synonym of R. villosus , followed in this by Hosack (1811: 49), Green (1814: 127), Steudel (1821: 707), and many other authors. Rees (1819: sub nomine) even stated (in slight error, since we know that R. vulpinus had been growing in Paris for at least 54 years at the time), “It appears to have been introduced into the gardens of England and France about the same time, near forty years ago. In the latter, it was called R. vulpinus .” So, in their opinions, the R. vulpinus of the botanical garden in Paris was the same as the R. villosus of Kew Gardens.

In contrast, Poiret (1804: 243) discussed the identity of R. vulpinus explicitly and argued that R. vulpinus cultivated in Paris differed from R. villosus by the glabrous adaxial surface of its leaves. Therefore, he provided the name R. vulpinus H.Par. in the synonymy of R. villosus with a question mark, but included at the end of the article differences between both taxa. We conclude this to be a valid publication of R. vulpinus under ICN ( Turland et al. 2018), art. 36.1, last sentence: Poiret accepted a species with the name R. vulpinus and gave a diagnosis, but was unsure that it was not identical with R. villosus . Taxonomic doubt does not make a publication invalid.

Soon thereafter, Zeyher (1806: 42) clearly distinguished R. vulpinus from R. villosus Aiton. He gave both names in his list, identifying R. villosus with R. hispidus Walter (1788: 149) , synonym of R. hispidus L. ( Linnaeus 1753: 493) and giving R. vulpinus as a separate species.

Seringe (in De Candolle 1825: 563 f) considered R. vulpinus to be a variety of R. villosus . He gave as synonyms of R. villosus : R. hybridus Vill. ( Villars 1779: 46; 1785: 51), R. glandulosus Bellardi (1793: 230) , and R. hirtus Waldst. & Kit. ( Waldstein & Kitaibel 1805: 150) , and associated the var. vulpinus with R. sprengelii Weihe (1819: 18) . However, all of Seringe’s identifications lack any basis.

Specimens of R. vulpinus are in several collections in the herbarium of the Musée Botanique:

1. “ Rubus vulpinus H.R.P.; Rubus villosus ? Aiton. Michaux.” Herb. Poiret in Herb. Moquin-Tandon. Herb. Cosson/Herb. Durand (P 03141718).

2. “ Rubus vulpinus Desf. H.P. ” Herb. Cosson/Herb. Durand; Herb. Maire (P 03141720).

3. “ Rubus canadensis …cosus fructo rubro Rubi f… facie. Cod. .. H.R. Paris. H.R. Paris. 1765. Julio. Dans les parterres.” (Jussieu scripsit); “ Rubus vulpinus Juss. h.r.p.” (Poiret scripsit). Another label: ‘An Rubus villosus Ait. Kew. 2. 210. LW 2.1085. Poir.enc. 6. 243. n. 21?” (Poiret scripsit). Herb. Jussieu 14.334

4. “ Rubus vulp. Envoyé de Newyorck”. Herb. De Lamarck (P00297334).

5. “ Rubus vulpinus . Hort. Par.” “Herb. Richard.” “folio tactu molissima semi-tomentosa. sprengelii”. Herb Drake.

All these specimens belong to the species presently known as R. allegheniensis Porter. Because the description of R. vulpinus was made by Poiret, the type must be selected from among specimens he had seen. From the list above, this is uncertain for specimens 2, 4 and 5. In addition, specimen 4 was not from the botanical garden in Paris. Thus, the choice of a type falls to specimens 1 or 3. Both are ones that Poiret signed as R. vulpinus , and on both he expressed his doubt about their conspecificity with R. villosus Aiton.

Specimen 3 is only a primocane, and specimen 1 includes an inflorescence with a secondary branch with some simple leaves and beginning compound leaves. Because Jussieu, who first gave the name to the taxon, labeled specimen 3 as R. canadensis , and, moreover, because the inflorescence of specimen 1 is more characteristic for the identification of R. vulpinus , we selected this as the lectotype (P 03141718).

Because R. vulpinus is identical with R. allegheniensis Porter , we can conclude this is an earlier legitimate synonym of R. allegheniensis .