identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03F5E208FF98FFD306DC251D9DB7FED6.text	03F5E208FF98FFD306DC251D9DB7FED6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus inopertus (Focke 1900) Focke 1911	<div><p>Rubus inopertus (Focke 1900: 400) Focke (1911: 182)</p><p>≡ R. niveus Thunberg (1813: 9) subsp. inopertus Focke (1900: 400) . Syntypes:— CHINA. Chongqing: Nanchuan, C. Bock &amp; A. von Rosthorn 1852, 1859 &amp; 444.</p><p>— R. inopertus (Focke 1900: 400) Focke (1911: 182) var. echinocalyx Cardot (1917: 310) . syn. nov. Type:— CHINA. Yunnan: Long-ki, 1894, J.M. Delavay s.n. (holotype P!; isotypes P!).</p><p>Notes: — Rubus inopertus var. echinocalyx (Fig. 1A) differs from R. inopertus var. inopertus by the needle-like prickles on the abaxial surface of the calyx. However, field observations and examination of herbarium specimens showed that the presence of prickles is not stable in this variety. Calyces with and without needle-like prickles occur in the same population (Figs. 1C &amp; 1D) and even within an individual (Figs. 1E &amp; 1F). Thus it is more appropriate to treat R. inopertus var. echinocalyx as a synonym of R. inopertus var. inopertus .</p><p>Distribution:— China (Guangxi, Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Yunnan), Vietnam (Lu &amp; Yu 1985, Lu &amp; Boufford 2003).</p><p>Additional specimens examined: — CHINA. Guangxi: Leye, Hongshui River Exped. 1054 (PE). Guizhou: Huangping, S. Guizhou Exped. 2454 (PE). Kaili, S. Guizhou Exped. 2154 (PE). Nayong, Bijie Exped. 529 (PE). Hubei: Badong, T.P. Wang 11134 (PE), Hubei Exped. 24641 (PE). Enshi, G.X Fu et Z.S Zhang 1295 (PE). Hunan: Sangzhi, Bejing Exped. 001952 (PE), L.Q Li 138 (PE). Shaanxi: Zhenba, Bashan Exped. 4274 (PE). Sichuan: Xuyong, X.H. Xiong 1561 &amp; 1562 (CDBI). Taiwan: Nantou, T.W. Hsu 5229 &amp; 5691 (TAIE). Yunnan: Pingbian, H.T. Tsai 62689 (PE). Precise locality unknown, E.E. Maire 103 (IBSC).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F5E208FF98FFD306DC251D9DB7FED6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Xiong, Xian-Hua;Liu, Chao;Pu, Yu-Qing;Liu, Mei	Xiong, Xian-Hua, Liu, Chao, Pu, Yu-Qing, Liu, Mei (2025): Rubus inopertus var. echinocalyx, R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus and Spiraea japonica var. pinnatifida, three synonyms of Rosaceae. Phytotaxa 697 (2): 206-212, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.697.2.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.697.2.6
03F5E208FF99FFD706DC25EE9B5FFCFA.text	03F5E208FF99FFD706DC25EE9B5FFCFA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus quinquefoliolatus Yu & Lu 1982	<div><p>Rubus quinquefoliolatus Yu &amp; Lu (1982: 306)</p><p>Type:— CHINA. Yunnan: Jinping, 13 May 1956, Yunnan Complex . Exped. 1437 (holotype PE!; isotypes IBSC!, KUN!) .</p><p>— Rubus pentagonus Wallich ex Focke (1911: 145) var. eglandulosus Yu &amp; Lu (1982: 306) . syn. nov. Type:— CHINA. Xizang: Motuo, 2000 m, 10 August 1980, Plateau Group Inst. Bot. Acad. Sin. 14142 (holotype PE!; isotype PE!).</p><p>Notes: — Yu &amp; Lu (1982) published Rubus pentagonus var. eglandulosus on the basis of the collection Plateau Group Inst. Bot. Acad. Sin. 14142 from Motuo, southeastern Xizang, China (Fig. 2A), and described it as differing from R. pentagonus var. pentagonus in having palmately 5-foliolate leaves and plants without stalked glands. However, variety eglandulosus was not compared with R. quinquefoliolatus Yu &amp; Lu (1982: 306), a species simultaneously published by them based on specimens collected from Yunnan and southwestern Guizhou. Rubus pentagonus var. eglandulosus and R. quinquefoliolatus both have 5-foliolate leaves and non-glandular hairs. Based on evidence from carefully comparing the morphological characteristics of specimens (including type specimens) and fieldwork, we found that R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus (Figs. 2A &amp; 3) is significantly different from R. pentagonus var. pentagonus (Fig. 2B) in the following morphological characteristics: leaves palmately 5-foliolate (vs. palmately 3-foliolate); petioles, pedicels and abaxial surface of the calyx without glandular hairs (vs. usually with glandular hairs); abaxial surface of the calyx unarmed (vs. with needle-like prickles); aggregate fruit and base of style villous (vs. glabrous). Whereas there is almost no morphological difference between R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus and R. quinquefoliolatus (Fig. 2C), suggesting these two taxa are identical. Our findings based on macromorphological characters were confirmed to some extent by pollen micromorphology data. Pollen micromorphology analyses (Xiong et al. 2019) showed that R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus is palynologically similar to R. quinquefoliolatus instead of to R. pentagonus var. longisepalus: R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus and R. quinquefoliolatus both have striate-perforate ornamentation, while the pollen ornamentation of R. pentagonus var. longisepalus is assigned to perforate. We therefore reduce R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus to synonymy under R. quinquefoliolatus .</p><p>Rubus quinquefoliolatus is also morphologically similar to R. alpestris Blume (1826: 1108) (Fig. 2D), a species distributed in Malaysia and Indonesia, but differs from the latter by the following key characteristics: petioles and pedicels without glandular hairs (vs. with glandular hairs); aggregate fruit and base of style villous (vs. glabrous).</p><p>Distribution:— China (Guizhou, Yunnan and Xizang; Lu &amp; Yu 1985, Lu &amp; Boufford 2003).</p><p>Additional specimens examined: — CHINA. Guizhou, Anlong, Z.S. Zhang &amp; Y.T. Zhang 4436 (PE). Xizang, Motuo, W.L. Chen 10700, 14582 (PE), X.H. Xiong 981, 1405, 1406 (CDBI), B. Xu &amp; X.H. Xiong YLZB1151, YLZB1174 (CDBI). Yunnan, Shuangjiang, G.S. Sin 794 (PE); Wenshan, K.M. Feng 22342 (KUN).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F5E208FF99FFD706DC25EE9B5FFCFA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Xiong, Xian-Hua;Liu, Chao;Pu, Yu-Qing;Liu, Mei	Xiong, Xian-Hua, Liu, Chao, Pu, Yu-Qing, Liu, Mei (2025): Rubus inopertus var. echinocalyx, R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus and Spiraea japonica var. pinnatifida, three synonyms of Rosaceae. Phytotaxa 697 (2): 206-212, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.697.2.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.697.2.6
03F5E208FF9DFFD706DC20279FDAF9AA.text	03F5E208FF9DFFD706DC20279FDAF9AA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spiraea micrantha Hooker f. 1878	<div><p>Spiraea micrantha Hooker f. (1878: 325)</p><p>Syntypes:— INDIA. Sikkim: 6000–8000 ft., J.D. Hooker s.n. (K!). BHUTAN. 5800–10000 ft., Griffith s.n.</p><p>≡ S. japonica Linnaeus f. (1782: 262) subsp. micrantha (Hooker f. 1878: 325) Kitamura (1974: 5) .</p><p>— S. callosa Thunberg in Murray (1784: 209) var. macrophylla Hooker &amp; Thomson. nom. nud.</p><p>— S. japonica Linnaeus f. (1782: 262) var. pinnatifida Yu &amp; Lu in Yu et al. (1980: 490). Type:— CHINA. Xizang: Cuona, 2900 m, 5 October 1974, Qing-Zang Exped. 74-2816 (holotype PE!; isotypes PE!, HNWP!).</p><p>Notes: — Spiraea japonica var. pinnatifida was published by Yu &amp; Lu in Yu et al. (1980) on the basis of a collection from Xizang (Fig. 4A). In the protologue, the authors noted that this variety was distinguished from S. micrantha Hooker f. var. micrantha (1878: 325) by the latter's larger inflorescences and glabrous carpels. However, according to Hooker’s (1878) protologue and type specimens, the ripe carpels of S. micrantha are exposed villous. Examination of the type specimens of S. japonica var. pinnatifida showed that the ripe carpels of S. japonica var. pinnatifida also are sparsely pilose. After further comparison of the type specimens, additional specimens at hand and the protologues of S. micrantha (Fig. 4B) and S. japonica var. pinnatifida (Figs. 4A &amp; 4C–4E), we found that they are not essentially different from each other.</p><p>Spiraea micrantha is morphologically close to S. japonica, but differs from it by the pale pink, rarely white petals and sub-dioecious sexuality (Figs. 4C–4E) (vs. pink or purple-red petals and bisexual flowers; Businský 2020).</p><p>Distribution:— China (Xizang), India, Bhutan and Nepal (Grierson 1987, Alexander &amp; Joshi 2012, Businský 2020).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F5E208FF9DFFD706DC20279FDAF9AA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Xiong, Xian-Hua;Liu, Chao;Pu, Yu-Qing;Liu, Mei	Xiong, Xian-Hua, Liu, Chao, Pu, Yu-Qing, Liu, Mei (2025): Rubus inopertus var. echinocalyx, R. pentagonus var. eglandulosus and Spiraea japonica var. pinnatifida, three synonyms of Rosaceae. Phytotaxa 697 (2): 206-212, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.697.2.6, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.697.2.6
