taxonID	type	description	language	source
03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58F58FE01FBD3.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Western Hupeh., Chang lo Hsien, thickets, 3000 feet, 1907 - 09, E. H. Wilson 81 (barcode K 000737866!, isolectotypes: A 00112764!, C 10017923!, LE 01015325!, LE 01015346!, NY 00429661!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737866].	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58F58FE01FBD3.taxon	discussion	Note: — Rolfe (1910) cited one collection from China: “ Wilson 81 ” in the protologue, when he described Rubus adenophorus but did not indicate the herbarium where the specimen was deposited. Later, Focke (1911 b) described a new species Rubus sagatus Focke (1911 b: 198), and cited the same specimen “ Wilson 81 ” collected from China. Consequently, Rubus sagatus is an illegitimate superfluous name for Rubus adenophorus (Art. 52.1 of the ICN). We located 5 duplicate specimens, deposited in A (barcode 00112764), K (barcode 00429685), LE (barcode 01015325 & 01015346), and NY (barcode 00429661). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (ICN; Art. 9.6, Turland et al. 2018). Hence, we designate here the sheet “ E. H. Wilson 81 ” kept in K (barcode 000737866), as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of the ICN). The selected sheet is complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and fruit that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D5896CFB36FA07.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — TAIWAN. Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 June 1903, U. J. Fauire 132 (barcode E 00010563!, isolectotypes: A 00040525!, G 00437170!, P 00755172!, P 00755173!). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00010563]. Note: — In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1906) cited one collection: “ Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 juin 1903; U. J. Fauire 132 ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). We locate five duplicates, deposited in A (barcode 00040525), E (barcode 00010563), G (barcode 00437170), and P (barcode 00755172 - 00755173). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 (Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in E (barcode 00010563) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58880FB75F8EF.taxon	description	Lectotype (first step, designated by Yü & Lu in Yü et al. (1980); second step designated here): — CHINA. Xizang: Mêdog Xian, 3250 m, 31 July 1974, Qinghai-Tibet Team (A ẠỰ) 74 - 3776 (barcode PE- 00020728!, isotype: PE- 00143825!). [Image available at https: // www. cvh. ac. cn / spms / detail. php? id = 075 c 7534]. Note: — In the protologue, Yü & Lu in Yü et al. (1980) cited one collection from China: “ Qinghai-Tibet Team 74 - 3776 ”, in PE as the holotype [first step]. We located two duplicates in the same herbarium (PE barcode 00020728 and 00143825), but the protologue did not indicate which of the two is the holotype. Therefore, they are syntypes and lectotype must be chosen (According to Art. 8.3, & 9.17; Turland et al. 2018). We designate the blooming specimen kept in PE (barcode 00020728) as the lectotype [second step]. The selected sheet is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDFFFC8A9D58A28FD39FEF5.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Sichuan West Sichaun and Tibetan Frontier, chiefly near Tachienlu, 9000 - 13500 ft, A. E. Pratt 97 (barcode K 000737805!, isolectotypes: A 00040554, K 000737803!, K 000737804!, P 00746066!, P 00746068!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737805]. Note: — Hemsley (1892) cited one collection “ Pratt 97 ” in the protologue when he described Rubus cockburnianus, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. We located six duplicate specimens, one of them in A (barcode 00040554), three of them deposited in K (barcode 000737803 - 000737805), and two of them in P (barcode 00746066 & 00746068) from which lectotype could be chosen (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate here the specimen “ A. E. Pratt ” in K (barcode 000737805) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D58C4EFD35FD29.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — KOREA. Quelpaert: in silvis Hallaisan, June 1909, T. Taquet 2845 (barcode E 00313541!). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00313541]. Note: — Léveillé (1910) cited three collections (Taquet 2834, 2835 & 2845) ” in the protologue when he described this variety, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. We locate three collections, one of them “ Taquet 2834 ” deposited in E (barcode 00010578), one of them “ Taquet 2835 ” in E (barcode 00313542), and the other material “ Taquet 2845 ” in E (barcode E 00313541); all these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). All the specimens in E bear the information “ Syntype Rubus coreanus var. nakaianus H. Léveillé ”, and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate the blooming specimen of “ T. Taquet 2845 ” in E (barcode E 00313541) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bear the same locality and is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D58E62FC99FAC5.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — SOUTH KOREA. Corée: Quelpaert, dans les haies a Setchimeri, May 1911, T. Taquet 5554 (barcode E 00010581!, isolectotypes: P 00755222!, P 00755224!). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00010581]. Note: — Léveillé (1912) mentioned the following locality: “ Corée, Quelpaert, dans les haies a Setchimeri, mai 1911 (Taquet 5554, 5555, 5556, 5557) ” in the protologue when he describing Rubus croceacanthus, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’s type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. We locate four collections, one of them “ Taquet 5554 ” deposited in E (barcode 00010581), and P (barcode 00755222 and 00755224), the specimen “ Taquet 5555 ” in E (barcode 00313545), the specimen “ Taquet 5556 ” in E (barcode 00313544), and the specimen “ Taquet 5557 ” in E (barcode 00313543); all these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). All the specimens in E bear the information “ Syntype Rubus croceacanthus H. Léveillé ”, and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate the blooming specimen of “ T. Taquet 5554 ” in E (barcode 00010581) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, inflorescence and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D5887EFEE7F885.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Yunnan: in silvis supra Che-tong prope Tapin-tze et in calcareis montis Pi-ious-se; fl. 11 June 1883, Delavay 2562 (barcode P 00755224!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00755224]. Note: — Rubus delavayi was described by Franchet (1890), who provided the following information: “ Yunnan: in silvis supra Che-tong prope Tapin-tze et in calcareis montis Pi-ious-se; fl. 11 Jun. 1883 (Delavay 2562) ” as the type in the protologue. Tropicos (2022) lists “ G. Forrest 129 ” kept in E as the type, with reference to the Flora of China (Lu & Boufford 2003). This usage of “ G. Forrest 129 ” is not part of original material, and should be considered a mistake, thus it cannot be selected as lectotype that should be corrected for “ Delavay 2562 ”. According to Stafleu and Cowan (1976), Franchet worked at P and Delavay’ specimens were deposited in K, P and PC. We locate 3 duplicate specimens, deposited in P (barcode 00755222, 00755223, and 00755224), and all the specimens have Delavay’s annotation and are well preserved. The two sheets in P (barcode 00755222 and 00755223) bears the locality “ Yunnan, Ma eul chan ”, and “ Yunnan: au Mont Pi-iou-se, au-dessus de Ta pin tze, près Tali ”, as well as without collector number, so it cannot be selected as lectotype. We designate the blooming specimen “ Delavay 2562 ” in P (barcode 00755224) as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). The selected sheet is complete and bears the same locality and date that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDCFFC9A9D58A3EFD1FFE41.taxon	materials_examined	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 K 000737858!, isolectotypes: K 000737857!, NY 00429685!, US 00097923!, US 00996965!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737858]. Note: — Focke (1911 b) 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.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58CFAFD76FD29.taxon	materials_examined	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 BM 000622281!). [Image available at https: // data. nhm. ac. uk / object / fce 9 afb 8 - 7 f 00 - 4 b 28 - 835 d- 9 ae 217 a 9046 d]. 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 ”.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58E62FD74F9AD.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Hupeh (Hubei): Ichang & immediate neighbourhood, and Patung district. A. Henry 1536 (barcode K 000737844!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737844]. = Rubus adenocalyx Cardot (1917: 311) Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Su-Tchuen [Sichuan] Oriental: district de Tchen-keou-tin, Farges s. n. (barcode P 00755175!, isolectotypes: P 00755176!, P 00755177!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00755175]. Note: — In the protologue, Hemsley (1887) provided the following information: “ China Hupeh (Hubei): Ichang & immediate neighbourhood, and Patung district. A. Henry! ” as the type (K). We traced two original materials of R. kuntzeanus Hemsley, one of them (A. Henry 1536) deposited in K (barcode 000737844), and the other materials of (A. Henry 1840) deposited in K (barcode 000737843). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN), and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the blooming specimen “ A. Henry 1536 ” in K (barcode 000737844) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue. For Rubus adenocalyx, Cardot (1917) mentioned the following locality information: “ SU-TCHUEN ORIENTAL: district de Tchen-keou-tin [Farges s. n.] ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). Three original materials were traced in P (barcode 00755175 - 00755177). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 (Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but they are syntypes and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.17). We designate here the blooming specimen “ Farges s. n. ” in P (barcode 00755175) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58BE6FE01F835.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Kwangtung (Guangdong), Aug. 1887, C. Ford 73 (barcode K 000737645!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737645]. Note: — In the protologue, Cardot (1917) provided two collections: “ China: Kwangtung [Guangdong] (Ford 73) ”, and “ Province de Kiangsi [Jiangxi], haies autour de Kin-Kiang, 1868 (David 781) ” but did not indicate the holotype specimen. We locate one specimen of “ Ford 73 ”, deposited in K (barcode 000737645), and 4 duplicate specimens of “ David s. n. ” kept in P (barcode 00746137, 00746138, 00746139, 00746140) but without collection number, so it cannot be select as the lectotype. We designate the sheet “ Ford 73 ” in K (barcode 000737645) as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN), since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58DFEFA98FC7D.taxon	description	Replaced name: Rubus multisetosus Yü & Lu (1985: 201) nom. illeg., non Progel (1882: 102); R. polytrichus Franchet (1890: 203) nom. illeg., non Progel (1882: 102)	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58DFEFA98FC7D.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Yunnan: in silvis montis Tsang-chan supra Tali, alt. 2500 - 3000 m, fl. June 1885, Delavay 954 (barcode P 00755446!, isolectotype: A 00228272!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00755446].	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58DFEFA98FC7D.taxon	etymology	Etymology: — The specific epithet derives from the prefix neo -, meaning new, and multisetosus, the epithet used by Yü & Lu (1985). Note: — Rubus polytrichus Franchet (1890: 203) is a later homonym of R. polytrichus Progel (1882: 102). Later, Yü & Lu (1985) proposed a new name R. multisetosus Yü & Lu (1985: 201) to replace R. polytrichus Franchet, but this is also illegitimate later homonym (Progel 1882: 102). A new replacement name, Rubus neomultisetosus M. Idrees, is therefore proposed here. In the protologue, Franchet (1890) provided the following locality information: Yunnan: in silvis montis Tsangchan supra Tali, alt. 2500 – 3000 m, fl. June 1885 (Delavay 1884 & Delavay 954), but did not indicate the holotype. Tropicos (2022) lists “ G. Forrest 4400 ” kept in E as the type, with reference to the Flora of China (Lu & Boufford 2003), but this is not part of the original material and must be disregarded. According to Stafleu and Cowan (1976), Franchet worked at P, and Delavay’s specimens were deposited in K, P and PC. We locate three duplicate specimens, one of them “ Delavay 1884 ” deposited in P (barcode 00755445), and two of them “ Delavay 954 ” in A (barcode 00228272), and P (barcode 00755446). However, all the specimens have Delavay’s annotation and are well preserved. All these collections should be regarded as syntype and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the sheet “ Delavay 954 ” in P (barcode 00755446) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescences that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58ED6FF2EFAE9.taxon	description	Replaced name: Rubus vicarius Focke ex Sargent (1911: 56; ad int. 31 July) nom. illeg., non Sudre (1902: 12)	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58ED6FF2EFAE9.taxon	materials_examined	Type (holotype): — CHINA. Western Szechuan [Sichuan]: Washan, thickets, alt. 1500 - 2100 m, July & Sept. 1908, E. H. Wilson 948 (barcode A 00133761!, isotypes: BM 000622283!, NY 00429721!, US 01107715!). [Image available at https: // kiki. huh. harvard. edu / databases / specimen _ search. php? mode = details & id = 136712].	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58ED6FF2EFAE9.taxon	etymology	Etymology: — The specific epithet derives from the prefix neo -, meaning new, and multisetosus, the epithet used by Focke (1911). Note: — According to Art. 53.1 of the ICN, Rubus vicarius Focke ex Sargent (1911: 56) is an illegitimate later homonym of R. vicarius Sudre (1902: 12). A new replacement name, Rubus neovicarius M. Idrees, is therefore proposed here.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58822FB97F885.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Prov. Hupeh [Hubei], A. Henry 6849 (barcode K 000737825!, isolectotypes: A 00040703!, BM 000622274!, GH 00112776!, NY 00429709!, P 00755319!, US 01107713!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737825]. Note: — In the protologue, Focke (1891) provided the following locality information: China, Prov. Hupeh, (Dr. A. Henry 6849) when he described Rubu pileatus, but did not indicate the herbarium where the type preserved. Tropicos (2022) lists “ E. H. Wilson 813 & G. Giraldi 5224 ” as the type, with reference to the Flora of China (Lu & Boufford 2003). Lu & Boufford (2003) did not cite any type specimen, and “ E. H. Wilson 813 & G. Giraldi 5224 ” are not part of the original materials and should be disregarded. It is well known that Focke’ original type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W and duplicate specimens in M, MO and NY (Stafleu & Cowan 1979). We located eight duplicate specimens, deposited in A (barcode 00040703), BM (barcode 000622274), GH (barcode 00112776), K (barcode 000737825), NY (barcode 00429709), P (barcode 00755319), and US (barcode 01107713). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). Among the available collections, the original materials of “ A. Henry 6849 ” kept at K (barcode 000737825) selected as lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDAFFCFA9D58A3EFEE7FE41.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — JAPAN. Insula Sagalien: in silvis Korsakof, 30 July, 30 Sept. 1908, U. Fauire 566 (barcode E 00317757!, isolectotype: A 00040722!). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00317757]. Note: — Léveillé (1909) mentioned the following locality: “ Insula Sagalien: in silvis Korsakof, 30 July, 30 Sept. 1908 (U. Fauire 565 & U. Fauire 566); in herbidis Vladimirof, July 1908 (U. Fauire 597); in montibus Takinosawa, 24 July 1908 (U. Fauire 567 & U. Fauire 598 pro parte ” in the protologue when he describing Rubus sachalinensis, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’s type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. We locate five collections, which have been deposited in E (barcode 00010560, 00317757 - 00317760), and should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN); it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate the blooming specimen of “ U. Fauire 566 ” in E (barcode 00317757) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, inflorescence and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58CFAFD16FCB5.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Kiangsi [Jiangxi], 3 Aug. 1873, O. Moellendorff s. n. (barcode BM 000946958!). [Image available at https: // data. nhm. ac. uk / object / 0016 db 02 - fc 51 - 413 b- 94 ce- 3 b 653 dd 5 cdc 0]. Note: — In the protologue, Hance (1874) mentioned the following locality information: “ The few plants of which a list is subjoined were all gathered on two consecutive days — the 2 nd and 3 rd August, 1873 — by Dr. Otto von Moellendorff, of the Imperial German Legation at Peking, on the hills lying immediately to the south of Kiukiang. ”. We trace the original material of “ Moellendorff, dated 3 August 1873 ” in BM (barcode 000946958). Two other collections from China: “ J. C. Nevin s. n., 1876 ” in BM (barcode 000946957), and “ R H. Graves s. n. ” in BM (barcode 000946958) are also mounted on the same sheet (Otto sheet). However, “ J. C. Nevin s. n., 1876 ” and “ R H. Graves s. n. ” were not cited in the original protologue by Hance (1874), thus it cannot be selected as the lecotype. Hence, we designate the original specimen of “ Moellendorff s. n. ” in BM (barcode 000946958) as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). The selected sheet bears the same locality and date and is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58E0EFCA5FAE9.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CENTRAL CHINA. Prov. Hupeh [Hubei], June 1900, A. Henry 6045 (barcode K 000737777!, isolectotypes: A 00040748!, E 00010654!, US 00095494!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737777]. Note: — Focke (1911 b) cited two gathering “ A. Henry 6045 ” and “ Wilson s. n. ” in the protologue when he described Rubus trianthus, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). Focke’ original type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W and duplicate specimens in M, MO and NY (Stafleu & Cowan 1979). We located four duplicate specimens, four specimen of “ A. Henry 6045 ” deposited in A (barcode 00040748), E (barcode 00010654), K (barcode 000737777), and US (barcode 00095494). However, we did not locate the specimen “ Wilson s. n. ” in any available herbarium. All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (ICN, Art. 9.6). Hence, we designate here the original materials of “ A. Henry 6045 ” kept in K (barcode 000737777) as lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58822FA8DF915.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Hubei: mountains, 1901, Wilson s. n. (barcode K 000737914!, isolectotype: K 000737913!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737914].	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58822FA8DF915.taxon	discussion	Note: — In the protologue, Veitch (1906) mentioned the following information: “ A species raised from seed collected in Central China in 1901 by Wilson, after whom it is named ”, when describing R. wilsonii. Later, Duthie (1912) again published the name R. wilsonii Duthie (1912: 36), and cited the following information “ Central China, Mountains of Hupeh, W. H. Wilson ”. Howerer, R. wilsonii Duthie is a later isonym without nomenclatural status and that may be disregarded (Art 6.3 Note 2 of the ICN). We traced two duplicate specimens, deposited in K (barcode 000737914 & 000737913), from which the lectotype could be chosen. We herein designate the blooming specimen of “ Wilson s. n. ” kept in K (barcode 000737914) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and perfect match to the description given in the protologue and there are many branches, leaves and flower on the herbarium sheet.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFDBFFCCA9D58B92FEDCFDB9.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Kouy-Tchéou: Tchen-Fong, 1 July 1905, J. Esquirol 525 (barcode E 00010566!, isolectotype: A 00112778!). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00010566]. = Rubus calycacanthus var. buergerifolia Léveillé (1910: 58) Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Province du Kouy-Tchéou: without date, J. Esquirol 920 (barcode E 00010567!, isolectotype: A 00112778). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00010567]. Note: — Léveillé (1910) mentioned the following locality: “ Kouy-Tchéou, Typus: Tchen-Fong, Juill. 1905, 1906, J. Esquirol 525 & J. Esquirol 894 ” in the protologue when describing Rubus calycacanthus, but since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’s type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. We locate four duplicate specimens, one of the collection “ 1905, J. Esquirol 525 ” deposited in A (barcode 00112778) and E (barcode 00010566), while another collection “ 1906, J. Esquirol 894 ”, deposited in A (barcode 00112779) and E (barcode 00317762). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (ICN, Art. 9.6). Hence, it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate here the sheet “ J. Esquirol 525 ” kept in E (barcode 00010566) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully correspond with the protologue. For Rubus calycacanthus var. buergerifolia, Léveillé (1910) provided two localities: “ Kouy-Tchéou, Typus: Tchen-Fong, J. Esquirol 920 ” and “ Houa-Kiang, 3 juin 1904, J. Cavalerie 2175 ”, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. We locate both the collections (syntypes), deposited in E, from which a lectotype could be chosen (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Therefore, we designate the sheet “ J. Esquirol 920 ” in E (barcode 00010567) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD8FFCCA9D58F12FBD6FBED.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. NW-Yünnan: Im wtp. Regenmischwalde des birm. Mons. im Doyon-lumba, einem linken Seitentale des Salwin, an Bäumen und Felsen Kletternd. Schiefer, 2400 - 2700 m, bei Bahan, 27 o 58, 20 June 1916, Handel-Mazzetti 8992 (barcode WU 0059387!, isolectotypes: A 00040568!, E 00010585!, M 0214184!, WU 0059386!). [Image available at https: // wu. jacq. org / WU 0059387]. Note: — In the protologue, Handel-Mazzetti (1933) cited three gathering (Handel-Mazzetti 8992, Handel-Mazzetti 8287 and Forreest 7383) ” and selected “ Handel-Mazzetti 8992 ” as the type, without indicating the herbarium where the specimen was deposited. We located 5 duplicate specimens, which have been deposited in A (barcode A 00040568), E (barcode E 00010585), M (barcode M 0214184) and WU (barcode 0059386 & 0059387). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 of ICN), and the name R. doyonensis needs lectotypification (Art. 9.12 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), Handel-Mazzetti’ original type material was deposited in W and WU. Hence, the specimen of “ Handel-Mazzetti 8992 ” in WU (barcode 0059387) is a perfect match to the description given in the protologue, thus, this blooming specimen selected here as the lectotype.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD8FFCCA9D58926FCC7F9C1.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Kweichou [Guizhou]: Lo-Fou, March 1909, J. Cavalerie 3576 (barcode E 00010594!, isolectotypes: A 00040591!, K 000737634!, P 00755234!, P 00755235!). [Image available at https: // data. rbge. org. uk / herb / E 00010594]. Note: — In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1910) cited one collection: “ J. Cavalerie 3576 ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). We locate five duplicate specimens, deposited in A (barcode 00040591), E (barcode 00010594), K (barcode 000737634), and P (barcode 00755234 - 00755235). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 (Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in E (barcode 00010594) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD8FFCDA9D58B7AFD39FF0D.taxon	description	Lectotype (first step, designated by Lu & Boufford 2003; second step designated here): — CHINA. Hupeh [Hubei], Wu Shan, A. Henry 5416 (barcode K 000737756!, isolectotypes: K 000737757!, K 000737759!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737756]. Note: — In the protologue, Focke (1900) cited the following locality information: “ Wu Shan (A. Henry 5416) ”, but did not indicate where the type preserved. Tropicos (2022) lists “ A. Henry 5416 ” as the type (K?) [first step], with reference to the Flora of China (Lu & Boufford 2003). We located six duplicates, five of them deposited in K (barcode K 000737756, K 000737757, K 000737758, K 000737759, K 000737760), and one in US (barcode 01107660). It is well known that Focke’ original type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W (Stafleu & Cowan 1979). Among the available collections, the sheets in K (barcode K 000737758, K 000737760), and US (barcode 01107660) collected from Sichuan, however it cannot be selected as lectotype, because in the original protologue cited “ Wu Shan ”. Wu Shan, mountain range on the border between Hubei province and Chongqing municipality, central China. While the sheets in K (barcode K 000737756, K 000737757, K 000737759) bear the correct type locality, Wu Shan [Hubei], it is necessary to select one of them as lectotype [second step] (Art. 9.17 of ICN). Hence, we designate here the specimen in K (barcode K 000737756) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D58D86FB37FDB9.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. W. Yunnan: Zwischen und auf Büschen dort, 25 ° 20 ’, 2120 m., VIII. 1913, Forrest 11996 (barcode W 0131822!, isolectotypes: A 00132869!, BM 000622285!, E 00010597!, K 000737849!). [Image available at https: // w. jacq. org / W 0131822]. Note: — In the protologue, Handel-Mazzetti (1933) cited three collections from China in which “ Zwischen und auf Büschen dort, 25 ° 20 ’, 2120 m., VIII. 1913 (Forrest 11996) ” was designated as the type but did not indicate the herbarium. We traced 5 duplicate specimens, which have been deposited in A (barcode 00132869), BM (barcode 000622285), E (barcode 00010597), K (barcode 000737849), and W (barcode 0131822), and should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), Handel-Mazzetti’s type material was mainly deposited in W and WU. According to Art. 9.12, we designate the specimen at W (barcode 0131822) as the lectotype here. The selected sheet bears the same locality and date that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D58F12FEE7FB55.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. W-Yünnan: Auf und zwischen Sträuchern in Gebüschen der Nmaikasalwin-Kette, 26 ° 40 ’, 2750 - 3000 m, VIII. 1919, Forrest 18348 (barcode W 0131823!, isolectotype: E 00010601!). [Image available at https: // w. jacq. org / W 0131823]. Note: — In the protologue, Handel-Mazzetti (1933) provided the following locality information when describing Rubus hemithyrsus: “ W-Yünnan: Auf und zwischen Sträuchern in Gebüschen der Nmaika-salwin-Kette, 26 ° 40 ’, 2750 - 3000 m, VIII. 1919 (Forrest 18348) ”. We located 4 duplicate specimens, which have been deposited in A (barcode 00040608), E (barcode 00010601), K (barcode 000737847), and W (barcode 0131823). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). However, the specimen of “ Forrest 18348 ” in A and K, cannot be select as lectotype, because the sheet bear the dated “ 1917 ”, but in the original protologue cited the dated “ VIII. 1919 ”. According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), Handel-Mazzetti’ original type material was deposited in W and WU. We located original material at W and E, both of them matching the locality and date mentioned above. We designate the blooming specimen of “ Forrest 18348 ” at W (barcode 0131823), where Handel-Mazzetti worked as the lectotype, since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, and flowers that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D589EEFD33F9E5.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Hupeh [Hubei], District of Chienshi, A. Henry 5794 (barcode K 000737665!, isolectotypes: BM 000622260!, GH 00040667!, LE 01015291!, US 00097945!). [Image available at http: // specimens. kew. org / herbarium / K 000737665]. Note: — In the protologue, Focke (1890) cited one collection: “ Hab. China: Prov. Hupeh, District of Chienshi, Dr. A. Henry 5794 ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. We located five duplicate sheets, deposited in BM, GH, K, LE, and US. According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 (Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). It is well known that Focke’ original type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in K (barcode 000737665) as the lectotype (Art. 9.12). The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD9FFC2A9D58B5EFEDCFF0D.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Su-Tchuen [Sichuan] Oriental: Bord des ravins a Mou-Koua-Keou, pres de Tchen-keou-tin, alt. 1000 m, 1898, P. G. Farges 1456 (barcode P 00755350!, isolectotypes: P 00755351!, P 00755352!, P 00755353!, P 00755354!, P 00755355!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00755350]. Note: — Cardot (1914) provided the following locality information: “ Su-Tchuen Oriental: Bord des ravins a Mou-Koua-Keou, pres de Tchen-keou-tin, alt. 1000 m, 1898 (Farges 1456) ” and “ Kouy-Tchéou: Pin-fa (Cavalerie 1907) ” but did not select the holotype specimen. All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (ICN, Art. 9.6). According to Stafleu and Mennega (1995), Cardot’ type materials were deposited at P. We traced six duplicate specimens, one of them “ Cavalerie 1907 ” deposited in P (barcode 00755349) and six specimen of “ Farges 1456 ” deposited in P (barcode 00755350, 00755351, 00755352, 00755353, 00755354, 00755355). All the specimens of “ Cavalerie 1907 ” & “ Farges 1456 ” in P bear the information “ Syntype Rubus rufa var. palmatifidus Cardot ”, and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the sheet “ Farge 1456 ” in P (barcode 00755350) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58936FE85FA01.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — W. CHINA. July 1903, E. H. Wilson 3484 (barcode P 00755302!, isolectotypes: A 00040689!, A 00133085!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00755302]. Note: — In the protologue, Cardot (1917) described Rubus ourosepalus and cited “ Wilson 1903; Veitch Exped. 3484 ” as the type, but did not indicate where the type preserved. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). According to Stafleu and Mennega (1995), Cardot’ original materials were deposited at P. We locate three duplicates, two of them deposited in A (barcode 00040689 and 00133085), and one of them in P (barcode 00755302). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1, Turland et al. 2018); hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.12). We designate the sheet in P (barcode 00755302) as the lectotype, since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D588B9FA8BF86C.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. W-Yünnan: In schattigen Gebüschen und Mischwäldern, 3000 m, VIII. 1917, Forrest 15838 (barcode W 0131824!, isolectotype: E 00010637!). [Image available at https: // w. jacq. org / W 0131824]. Note: — In the protologue, Handel-Mazzetti (1933) cited two collections from China, in which “ W. Y.: In schattigen Gebüschen und Mischwäldern, 3000 m, VIII. 1917 (Forrest 15838) ” was designated as the type, but did not indicate the herbarium where the type specimen preserved. According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), Handel-Mazzetti’s type material was mainly deposited in W and WU. We traced 5 duplicate specimens, deposited in A, E, K, P and W. The sheets in A (barcode 00040707) and P (barcode 00755313) was dated Jan. 1917, while the sheet in K (barcode 000737911) dated 1917 - 1919 was not seen by Handel-Mazzetti and also not mentioned in the protologue, hence these sheets cannot be select as lecotype. We located original material at E (barcode 00010637) and W (barcode 0131824), both of them matching the locality and date mentioned above. We designate the blooming specimen of “ Forrest 15838 ” at W (barcode 0131824), where Handel-Mazzetti worked as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58D86FECEFD76.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Province du Se-tchuen [Sichuan], au Sud de Ta-tsien-lou, P. G. Bonvalot s. n. (barcode P 00755367!, isolectotype: P 00755366!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00755367]. Note: — Rubus setchuenensis was described by Bureau and Franchet (1891), who provided only the locality information: Chine (China): “ Province du Se-tchuen [Sichuan], au Sud de Ta-tsien-lou ”, without collector and number, as the type in the protologue. It’s well known that Franchet worked at P (Stafleu and Cowan 1976). We locate two original collections, with the same locality information: one of them “ J. Cavalerie 3945 ”, deposited in P (barcode 00755443 & 00755444), and other specimen of “ P. G. Bonvalot s. n. ”, deposted in P (barcode 00755367 and barcode 00755366). According to Arts. 9.4 and 9.6 (Turland et al. 2018), all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17). Among the availble collections, the one sheet in P (barcode 00755367), is a perfect match to the description given in the protologue, thus, this blooming specimen selected here as the lectotype.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58FD0FB00FBFB.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — CHINA. Yunnan: in silvis circa Tchen-fong-chan, Delavay s. n. (barcode P 00746144!, isolectotype: P 00746145!). [Image available at http: // coldb. mnhn. fr / catalognumber / mnhn / p / p 00746144]. Note: — Franchet (1895) provided the following locality information: Yunnan: “ in silvis circa Tchen-fong-chan (Delavay s. n.) ” as the type in the protologue. According to Stafleu and Cowan (1976), Franchet worked at P, and Delavay’s specimens were deposited in K, P and PC. We locate two duplicate specimens of “ Delavay s. n. ”, deposited in P (barcode 00746144 & 00746145) and all the specimens have Delavay’s annotation and are well preserved. All the specimens of P bear the same locality information and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the blooming specimen “ Delavay s. n. ” in P (barcode 00746144) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears the same locality and well preserved specimen that fully correspond with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
03EF287EFFD6FFC3A9D58A89FE09FBEA.taxon	materials_examined	Type (lectotype designated here): — NEPAL. Himalayas: Gosaingstahan, 1818, Wallich s. n. (barcode BM 000522033!, isolectotypes: BM 000522037!, BM 000939762). [Image available at https: // data. nhm. ac. uk / object / 7954 bcdc-b 03 f- 45 ba-a 33 e-c 8005 e 106 de 3]. Note: — In the protologue, David Don described Rubus calycinus in his Prodromus Florae Nepalensis (1825), and cited “ R. calycinus, Wallich in Litt., Hab. in Gosaingstahan, Wallich ”. According to Fraser-Jenkins (2006), the plant specimen used by Don was based on the early Wallich set of Lambert’s, actually collected in Nepal during 1817 - 1819 by E. Gardner or his assistant Robert Stuart who unfortunately died on 14 March 1820, prior to Wallich’s own, numbered collections of 1820 - 1821. Miller (1970) records four letters from Wallich between 1818 - 1819 that reported sending him Wallich specimens. After his death, Lambert’s herbarium was divided into lots and auctioned by Sotheby. Robert Brown bought at least two lots of Wallich’s collections along with a copy of the Wallich Catalogue (Miller 1970, Fraser-Jenkins 2006). Thus Lambert’s Nepalese collections by and large are now kept at the Natural History Museum (BM), and this would include Wallich’s original material of R. calycinus Wallich ex D. Don (1925: 235). In fact, the Nepalese Rubus calycinus collections, there are 2 specimens from Wallich, one of early collection: “ Wallich s. n. ” collected in 1818, deposited in BM, and one later Wallich collections: “ Wallich 737 ” collected in 1821, in E and K. We locate 3 duplicate specimens of “ Wallich s. n., dated 1818 ”, deposited at BM (barcode 000522033, 000522037 & 000939762) (syntypes), and one of the sheet would make a suitable lectotype. In addition, we also traced 7 duplicate specimens of later wallich collections: “ Wallich 737, dated 1821 ”, deposited in E (barcode 00010673, 00301498 & 00301499), K (barcode 001111745, 000737908 & 000737909) and M (barcode 0214191), but it cannot be selected as lectotype because Don cited “ Wallich s. n. ”. Furthermore, as i have mentioned above, the plant specimen used by Don was based on the early Wallich set of Lambert’s, collected in Nepal during the year 1817 - 1819. Recently, Xiong et al. (2019: 150) cited “ Wallich 737, dated 1821 ” in K (barcode 001111745) as the lectotype, but Xiong designated lectotype must be canceled because it was not part of the original material, and also it’s a later Wallich collections. According to Fraser-Jenkins 2006, Lambert’s Nepalese collections by and large are now kept at the Natural History Museum (BM). Hence, following ICN Arts. 9.3, 9.12, we designate the original specimen deposited at BM (barcode 000522033) as lectotype, superseding Xiong et al. (2019) selection of “ Wallich 737 ” as provided by ICN, Art. 9.19. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.	en	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): 13-24, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2
