Rubus innominatus var. aralioides (Hance) Yü & Lu (1985: 48)

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 : 16

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7011144
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287E-FFDD-FFC9-A9D5-8CFAFD76FD29
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Rubus innominatus var. aralioides (Hance) Yü & Lu (1985: 48)
status

Treatment

9. Rubus innominatus var. aralioides (Hance) Yü & Lu (1985: 48) View in CoL

≡ Rubus aralioides Hance (1884: 42) View in CoL

Type (holotype):— CHINA. Ad rivulos, infra torrentem Sui-tin-mun: jugi Lo-fau-shan, Prov. Cantonensis, alt. 1000 ped., May 1883, leg. rev. B.C. Henry 22211 (barcode BM000622281 !). [Image available at https://data.nhm. ac.uk/object/fce9afb8-7f00-4b28-835d-9ae217a9046d] .

Note:—In the protologue, Hance (1884) cited one collection: “ B.C. Henry 22211 ” as the type. We traced the original material kept in BM, although the protologue did not mention the herbarium, this is the only material available, and therefore only it can be considered the holotype. Tropicos (2022) lists “ S. W. Teng 90429 ” and cited “HT:?; ST: A” as the type, with reference to the Flora of China ( Lu & Boufford 2003). This usage of “ S. W. Teng 90429 ” is a mistake that must be corrected for “ B.C. Henry 22211 ”.