Validations of theRubustaxa in Tournefort'sInstitutionesand theirCorollariumin later literature

Abstract

Tournefort published several Rubus taxa in his Institutiones and its Corollarium. Most of these have been validated by authors in the second half of the eighteenth century. Tournefort's species have been investigated, and most of them identified and typified here, and the later validations have been investigated as well. Some of the publications will have impact on present day nomenclature. The most significant are the identifications of R. aetnicus Cupani ex Weston with R. canescens auct. non DC (= R. tomentosus Willd. non Borkh.) and of R. creticus Tourn. ex L. with R. sanctus Schreb., which has to be regarded as co-specific with R. ulmifolius Schott. Next to this, the identification of R. polonicus Barr. ex Weston as R. nessensis Hall, and the publications of R. vulgaris Tourn. ex J. de Vries and R. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) Tollard are remarkable. Since the latter is a form of R. ulmifolius a new combination is published: Rubus ulmifolius f. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) A.Beek., comb. nov., stat. nov. Because the series which is presently named Canescentes H.E. Weber turned out to have no correct name, it is published here again as the series Argyrophylli A.Beek, ser. nov. RÉSUMÉ Validation des taxa de Rubus dans les Institutiones de Tournefort et leur Corollarium dans la littérature ultérieure. Tournefort a publié plusieurs taxons de Rubus dans ses Institutiones et leur Corollarium. Ceux-ci ont été en grande partie validés par des auteurs de la seconde moitié du XVIII ème siècle. Dans ce travail, toutes les espèces de Tournefort sont revues, pour la plupart identifiées et typifiées, tandis que les validations plus tardives ont été également recherchées. Certaines de ces publications modifient la nomenclature actuelle du genre, notamment par l'identification de R. aetnicus Cupani ex Weston comme R. canescens auct. non DC. (= R. tomentosus Willd. non Borkh.) et de R. creticus Tourn. ex L. comme R. sanctus Schreb., lequel doit être considéré comme conspécifique de R. ulmifolius Schott. De même, il faut signaler l'identification de R. polonicus Barr. ex Weston à R. nessensis Hall, et les publications de R. vulgaris Tourn. ex J. de Vries et R. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) Tollard. Ce dernier étant une forme de R. ulmifolius, une nouvelle combinaison est proposée : Rubus ulmifolius f. laciniatus (Tourn. ex Weston) A.Beek., comb. nov., stat. nov. Enfin, la série nommée actuellement Canescentes H.E. Weber apparaît incorrecte et est republiée ici comme la série Argyrophylli A.Beek, ser. nov.

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

“…typo excluso and concluded that R. canescens must be the correct name of this taxon, as the name R. tomentosus Borkh. is illegitimate because Borkhausen (1794b; most authors refer to this publication; the actual protologue is in Borkhausen 1794a, Beek 2016) included R. occidentalis L. (1753: 493) in the description (Weber 1989, Beek 2016).…”

“…De Candolle (1813) described R. canescens in his catalogue of the botanical garden in Montpellier. It is questionable whether this publication is provisional (Beek 2016) or the ambiguous phrases only express scholarly prudence. The publication in Flore de France (De Candolle 1815) is certainly valid.…”

“…When Beek (2016) rejected the identity of R. canescens and R. tomentosus and identified the former with R. × collinus , the name Canescentes was typified by this species and consequently the series of R. tomentosus was nameless again. It was then given the name Argyrophylli A.Beek (Beek 2016: 44).…”

“…d) Rectus: the stem is not prostrate like those of R. caesius , which is indicated as ‘repens'. Rubus elegantissimus , a small form of R. idaeus L. (Beek 2016), is also indicated as ‘rectus. '…”

“…This description was used by Weston (1770: 258), who validated the name Rubus aetnicus . Beek (2016: 40) selected a type from Cupani's Panphyton (Cupani 1713: Tab. 61) and identified the taxon as R. canescens sensu H.E.Weber (1989), which was, according to his analysis, not identical with R. canescens DC.…”