Revision der von A. Ade, Th. Braeucker, G. Braun, G. Kükenthal und A. Schumacher aus dem Rheinland beschriebenen Brombeeren(RubusL.,Rosaceae)*

Matzke-Hajek, Günter

doi:10.3372/wi.27.2702

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The former referred to localities at Vinadio in Italy and specimens in the botanical garden, while the latter only referred to the plant of Vinadio. A specimen collected by De Candolle is preserved at GE, and Matzke‐Hajek (1993) correctly selected this as the lectotype (G, Vinadio, 22 Juillet 1809, ‘ Rubus velutinus DC'). He identified this specimen as R. tomentosus Borkh.…”

Section: Rubus Canescens DCmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston and R. canescens DC. (Rosaceae): an analysis

Beek

Domina

2021

Nordic Journal of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beek (2016) argued that Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston was the correct name of the taxon that was then called R. canescens DC., and which was previously known as R. tomentosus Borkh. Moreover, R. canescens was stated to be not identical with R. aetnicus, but rather a form of R. × collinus DC. Matzke-Hajek ( 2016) raised objections to both statements. Therefore, the aim of this study was to thoroughly analyse both names and support this analysis with field work at the type localities and by DNA data. Despite the correspondence at the investigated conservative DNA loci, the investigation showed that the two species are morphologically different and must be conceived as separate taxa. According to the rules of the ICN, R. aetnicus, as the earliest available legitimate name, must be accepted as the correct name for R. tomentosus auct. non Borkh. There is no reason not to use the name R. aetnicus, which has not been commonly used until now. It is unambiguous, while any other name could cause confusion if it would be conserved. Other scientific names clarified in this study are R. aetnaeus Tornab. (= R. ulmifolius Schott), R. aetnensis Tornab. (= R. aetnicus) and R. argenteus Gmel.

show abstract

Section: Rubus Canescens DCmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston and R. canescens DC. (Rosaceae): an analysis

Beek

Domina

2021

Nordic Journal of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Native dominants in British woodland – a potential cause of reduced species-richness?

Marrs

Kirby

Duc

et al. 2013

New Journal of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. The invasion of native habitats by alien species has received considerable attention. 1 However, in Britain high levels of dominance by a small number of aggressive native 2 plant species may have an equal, or greater, impact on the richness of native 3 woodlands. Here, we examine this hypothesis by modelling the realized niche of 4 native-dominant species along the principal coenocline of British woodlands, and 5 examined niche overlaps with 78 woodland specialist species and two alien species. 6Four native species had a much greater cover than all other field-layer species, and 7 between them they entirely covered the response range of all other field-layer species, 8 replacing one another along the coenocline. These findings, combined with 9 autecological information suggest that Hedera helix, Mercurialis perennis, Pteridium 10 aquilinum and Rubus fruticosus have the potential to become 'over-dominant ' and 11 perhaps may impinge on other field-layer species. Our results also identified which 12 field-layer species are likely to be impacted by a change in abundance of each of these 13 dominant-species, and as such, provide a novel quantitative method of risk assessment 14 to aid conservation policy. Understanding how woodland communities remain 15 diverse, even in the presence of aggressive native species, may provide insights into 16 how the impact of exotic invasive species can be managed. 17 18

show abstract

Liste der Gefäßpflanzen Deutschlands

Buttler,

Hand

2008

kochia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seit dem Erscheinen der letzten deutschen Florenliste für Farn- und Samenpflanzen im Jahr 1998 haben sich zahlreiche Änderungen ergeben: Erstnachweise, Streichungen und Neubeschreibungen von Sippen, taxonomische Neubewertungen und nomenklatorische Änderungen. Das neue Verzeichnis listet alle in Deutschland etablierten Sippen (Indigene, Archäophyten, Neophyten) der Rangstufen Art und Unterart auf sowie eine Auswahl an Synonymen. Akzeptiert werden 4165 Sippen. Die Kriterien für etablierte Neophyten wurden geringfügig modifiziert. Durch den Bezug zum „Kritischen Band“ der Rothmaler-Exkursionsflora ist im Gegensatz zu früheren Florenlisten eine eindeutige taxonomische Verknüpfung hergestellt; Abweichungen werden kommentiert. Eine Reihe taxonomisch kritischer Taxa wurde von Spezialisten bearbeitet.

show abstract

Revision der von A. Ade, Th. Braeucker, G. Braun, G. Kükenthal und A. Schumacher aus dem Rheinland beschriebenen Brombeeren(RubusL.,Rosaceae)^*

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston and R. canescens DC. (Rosaceae): an analysis

Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston and R. canescens DC. (Rosaceae): an analysis

Native dominants in British woodland – a potential cause of reduced species-richness?

Liste der Gefäßpflanzen Deutschlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About