Rubus idaeopsis Focke (1911b: 203)

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 : 15

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7009300
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287E-FFDC-FFC9-A9D5-8A3EFD1FFE41
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Rubus idaeopsis Focke (1911b: 203)
status

Treatment

8. Rubus idaeopsis Focke (1911b: 203) View in CoL

Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Im östlichen Himalaya; in Yünnan, und zwar in Wäldern bei Mongtse in 1500-1600 m. Höhe, A. Henry 10922 (barcode K000737858!, isolectotypes: K000737857!, NY00429685!, US00097923!, US 00996965!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737858] .

Note:— Focke (1911b) provided the following locality information: “Im östlichen Himalaya; in Yünnan, und zwar in Wäldern bei Mong-tse in 1500-1600 m. Höhe (A. Henry 10922)”, but did not say in which herbarium the type is allocated. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), Focke’ type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W and duplicate specimens in M, MO and NY. We located 5 duplicate specimens, two of them deposited in K (barcode 000737857 & 000737858), one in NY (barcode 00429685), and two in US (barcode 00097923 & 00996965). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). We designate here the specimen “ A. Henry 10922” kept in K (barcode 000737858) as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN) because it has the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fullycorrespond with the protologue.