identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58F58FE01FBD3.text	03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58F58FE01FBD3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus adenophorus Rolfe 1910	<div><p>1. Rubus adenophorus Rolfe (1910: 382),</p> <p>[Rubus sagatus Focke (1911b: 198) nom. superfl.]</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Western Hupeh., Chang lo Hsien, thickets, 3000 feet, 1907-09, E.H. Wilson 81 (barcode K000737866!, isolectotypes: A00112764!, C10017923!, LE01015325!, LE01015346!, NY00429661!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737866].</p> <p>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 (1911b) described a new species Rubus sagatus Focke (1911b: 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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58F58FE01FBD3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D5896CFB36FA07.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus alnifoliolatus Leveille & Vaniot 1906	<div><p>2. Rubus alnifoliolatus Léveillé &amp; Vaniot (1906: 549)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— TAIWAN. Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 June 1903, U.J. Fauire 132 (barcode E00010563!, isolectotypes: A00040525!, G00437170!, P00755172!, P00755173!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010563].</p> <p>Note:—In the protologue, Léveillé &amp; 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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D5896CFB36FA07	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58880FB75F8EF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus austro-tibetanus Yu & Lu	<div><p>3. Rubus austro-tibetanus Yü &amp; Lu in Yü et al. (1980: 496)</p> <p>Lectotype (first step, designated by Yü &amp; Lu in Yü et al. (1980); second step designated here):— CHINA. Xizang: Mêdog Xian, 3250 m, 31 July 1974, Qinghai-Tibet Team (AẠỰ) 74-3776 (barcode PE-00020728!, isotype: PE-00143825!). [Image available at https://www.cvh.ac.cn/spms/detail.php?id=075c7534].</p> <p>Note:—In the protologue, Yü &amp; 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, &amp; 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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDFFFCBA9D58880FB75F8EF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDFFFC8A9D58A28FD39FEF5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus cockburnianus Hemsley 1892	<div><p>4. Rubus cockburnianus Hemsley (1892: 305)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Sichuan West Sichaun and Tibetan Frontier, chiefly near Tachienlu, 9000-13500ft, A.E. Pratt 97 (barcode K000737805!, isolectotypes: A00040554, K000737803!, K000737804!, P00746066!, P00746068!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737805].</p> <p>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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDFFFC8A9D58A28FD39FEF5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D58C4EFD35FD29.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus coreanus var. nakaianus H. Leveille 1910	<div><p>5. Rubus coreanus var. nakaianus Léveillé (1910: 358)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— KOREA. Quelpaert: in silvis Hallaisan, June 1909, T. Taquet 2845 (barcode E00313541!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/ E00313541].</p> <p>Note:— Léveillé (1910) cited three collections (Taquet 2834, 2835 &amp; 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 E00313541); 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 E00313541) 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D58C4EFD35FD29	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D58E62FC99FAC5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus croceacanthus H. Leveille 1912	<div><p>6. Rubus croceacanthus Léveillé (1912: 33)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— SOUTH KOREA. Corée: Quelpaert, dans les haies a Setchimeri, May 1911, T. Taquet 5554 (barcode E00010581!, isolectotypes: P00755222!, P00755224!). [Image available at https://data.rbge. org.uk/herb/E00010581].</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D58E62FC99FAC5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D5887EFEE7F885.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus delavayi Franchet 1890	<div><p>7. Rubus delavayi Franchet (1890: 205)</p> <p>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 P00755224!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/ catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755224].</p> <p>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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDCFFC8A9D5887EFEE7F885	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDCFFC9A9D58A3EFD1FFE41.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus idaeopsis Focke 1911	<div><p>8. Rubus idaeopsis Focke (1911b: 203)</p> <p>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].</p> <p>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 &amp; 000737858), one in NY (barcode 00429685), and two in US (barcode 00097923 &amp; 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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDCFFC9A9D58A3EFD1FFE41	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58CFAFD76FD29.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus innominatus var. aralioides (Hance) Yu & Lu 1985	<div><p>9. Rubus innominatus var. aralioides (Hance) Yü &amp; Lu (1985: 48)</p> <p>≡ Rubus aralioides Hance (1884: 42)</p> <p>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].</p> <p>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 &amp; Boufford 2003). This usage of “ S. W. Teng 90429 ” is a mistake that must be corrected for “ B.C. Henry 22211 ”.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58CFAFD76FD29	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58E62FD74F9AD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus innominatus var. kuntzeanus (Hemsley) Bailey 1920	<div><p>10. Rubus innominatus var. kuntzeanus (Hemsley) Bailey (1920: 30)</p> <p>≡ Rubus kuntzeanus Hemsley (1887: 232)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Hupeh (Hubei): Ichang &amp; immediate neighbourhood, and Patung district. A. Henry 1536 (barcode K000737844!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/ K000737844].</p> <p>= Rubus adenocalyx Cardot (1917: 311)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Su-Tchuen [Sichuan] Oriental: district de Tchen-keou-tin, Farges s.n. (barcode P00755175!, isolectotypes: P00755176!, P00755177!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/ catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755175].</p> <p>Note:— In the protologue, Hemsley (1887) provided the following information: “ China Hupeh (Hubei): Ichang &amp; 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.</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58E62FD74F9AD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58BE6FE01F835.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus megalothyrsus Cardot 1917	<div><p>11. Rubus megalothyrsus Cardot (1917: 293)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Kwangtung (Guangdong), Aug. 1887, C. Ford 73 (barcode K000737645!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737645].</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDDFFC9A9D58BE6FE01F835	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58DFEFA98FC7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus neomultisetosus M. Idrees 2022	<div><p>12. Rubus neomultisetosus M. Idrees, nom. nov.</p> <p>Replaced name: Rubus multisetosus Yü &amp; Lu (1985: 201) nom. illeg., non Progel (1882: 102); R. polytrichus Franchet (1890: 203) nom. illeg., non Progel (1882: 102)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Yunnan: in silvis montis Tsang-chan supra Tali, alt. 2500-3000 m, fl. June 1885, Delavay 954 (barcode P00755446!, isolectotype: A00228272!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn. fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755446].</p> <p>Etymology: —The specific epithet derives from the prefix neo -, meaning new, and multisetosus, the epithet used by Yü &amp; Lu (1985).</p> <p>Note:— Rubus polytrichus Franchet (1890: 203) is a later homonym of R. polytrichus Progel (1882: 102). Later, Yü &amp; Lu (1985) proposed a new name R. multisetosus Yü &amp; 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.</p> <p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58DFEFA98FC7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58ED6FF2EFAE9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus neovicarius M. Idrees 2022	<div><p>13. Rubus neovicarius M. Idrees, nom. nov.</p> <p>Replaced name: Rubus vicarius Focke ex Sargent (1911: 56; ad int. 31 July) nom. illeg., non Sudre (1902:12)</p> <p>≡ Rubus idaeus f. vicarius Focke (1911b: 211; ad int. June)</p> <p>Type (holotype):— CHINA. Western Szechuan [Sichuan]: Washan, thickets, alt. 1500-2100 m, July &amp; Sept. 1908, E.H. Wilson 948 (barcode A00133761!, isotypes: BM000622283!, NY00429721!, US01107715!). [Image available at https://kiki.huh.harvard.edu/databases/specimen_search.php?mode=details&amp;id=136712].</p> <p>Etymology: —The specific epithet derives from the prefix neo -, meaning new, and multisetosus, the epithet used by Focke (1911).</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58ED6FF2EFAE9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58822FB97F885.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus pileatus Focke 1891	<div><p>14. Rubus pileatus Focke (1891: sub t. 1952)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Prov. Hupeh [Hubei], A. Henry 6849 (barcode K000737825!, isolectotypes: A00040703!, BM000622274!, GH00112776!, NY00429709!, P00755319!, US01107713!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737825].</p> <p>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 &amp; G. Giraldi 5224 ” as the type, with reference to the Flora of China (Lu &amp; Boufford 2003). Lu &amp; Boufford (2003) did not cite any type specimen, and “ E. H. Wilson 813 &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDAFFCEA9D58822FB97F885	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDAFFCFA9D58A3EFEE7FE41.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus sachalinensis Leveille 1909	<div><p>15. Rubus sachalinensis Léveillé (1909: 332)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— JAPAN. Insula Sagalien: in silvis Korsakof, 30 July, 30 Sept. 1908, U. Fauire 566 (barcode E00317757!, isolectotype: A00040722!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00317757].</p> <p>Note:— Léveillé (1909) mentioned the following locality: “Insula Sagalien: in silvis Korsakof, 30 July, 30 Sept. 1908 (U. Fauire 565 &amp; U. Fauire 566); in herbidis Vladimirof, July 1908 (U. Fauire 597); in montibus Takinosawa, 24 July 1908 (U. Fauire 567 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDAFFCFA9D58A3EFEE7FE41	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58CFAFD16FCB5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus tephrodes Hance 1874	<div><p>16. Rubus tephrodes Hance (1874: 260)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Kiangsi [Jiangxi], 3 Aug. 1873, O. Moellendorff s.n. (barcode BM000946958!). [Image available at https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/0016db02-fc51-413b-94ce-3b653dd5cdc0].</p> <p>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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58CFAFD16FCB5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58E0EFCA5FAE9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus trianthus Focke 1911	<div><p>17. Rubus trianthus Focke (1911b: 140)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CENTRAL CHINA. Prov. Hupeh [Hubei], June 1900, A. Henry 6045 (barcode K000737777!, isolectotypes:A00040748!, E00010654!, US00095494!). [Image available at http://specimens. kew.org/herbarium/K000737777].</p> <p>Note:— Focke (1911b) 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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58E0EFCA5FAE9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58822FA8DF915.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus wilsonii Duthie ex Veitch 1906	<div><p>18. Rubus wilsonii Duthie ex Veitch (1906: 378)</p> <p>[R. wilsonii Duthie (1912: 36) isonym]</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Hubei: mountains, 1901, Wilson s.n. (barcode K000737914!, isolectotype: K000737913!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737914].</p> <p>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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDBFFCFA9D58822FA8DF915	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFDBFFCCA9D58B92FEDCFDB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus calycacanthus Leveille 1910	<div><p>19. Rubus calycacanthus Léveillé (1910: 58)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Kouy-Tchéou: Tchen-Fong, 1 July 1905, J. Esquirol 525 (barcode E00010566!, isolectotype: A00112778!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010566].</p> <p>= Rubus calycacanthus var. buergerifolia Léveillé (1910: 58)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Province du Kouy-Tchéou: without date, J. Esquirol 920 (barcode E00010567!, isolectotype: A00112778). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010567].</p> <p>Note:—Léveillé (1910) mentioned the following locality: “Kouy-Tchéou, Typus: Tchen-Fong, Juill. 1905, 1906, J. Esquirol 525 &amp; 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.</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFDBFFCCA9D58B92FEDCFDB9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD8FFCCA9D58F12FBD6FBED.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus doyonensis Handel-Mazzetti 1933	<div><p>20. Rubus doyonensis Handel-Mazzetti (1933: 487)</p> <p>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 WU0059387!, isolectotypes: A00040568!, E00010585!, M0214184!, WU0059386!). [Image available at https://wu.jacq.org/ WU0059387].</p> <p>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 A00040568), E (barcode E00010585), M (barcode M0214184) and WU (barcode 0059386 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD8FFCCA9D58F12FBD6FBED	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD8FFCCA9D58926FCC7F9C1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus feddei Leveille & Vaniot 1910	<div><p>21. Rubus feddei Léveillé &amp; Vaniot (1910: 549)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Kweichou [Guizhou]: Lo-Fou, March 1909, J. Cavalerie 3576 (barcode E00010594!, isolectotypes: A00040591!, K000737634!, P00755234!, P00755235!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010594].</p> <p>Note:—In the protologue, Léveillé &amp; 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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD8FFCCA9D58926FCC7F9C1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD8FFCDA9D58B7AFD39FF0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus flagelliflorus Focke 1900	<div><p>22. Rubus flagelliflorus Focke (1900: 393)</p> <p>Lectotype (first step, designated by Lu &amp; Boufford 2003; second step designated here):— CHINA. Hupeh [Hubei], Wu Shan, A. Henry5416 (barcode K000737756!, isolectotypes: K000737757!, K000737759!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737756].</p> <p>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. Henry5416 ” as the type (K?) [first step], with reference to the Flora of China (Lu &amp; Boufford 2003). We located six duplicates, five of them deposited in K (barcode K000737756, K000737757, K000737758, K000737759, K000737760), 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 &amp; Cowan 1979). Among the available collections, the sheets in K (barcode K000737758, K000737760), 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 K000737756, K000737757, K000737759) 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 K000737756) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD8FFCDA9D58B7AFD39FF0D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D58D86FB37FDB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus forrestianus Handel-Mazzetti 1933	<div><p>23. Rubus forrestianus Handel-Mazzetti (1933: 490)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. W. Yunnan: Zwischen und auf Büschen dort, 25°20’, 2120 m., VIII. 1913, Forrest 11996 (barcode W0131822!, isolectotypes: A00132869!, BM000622285!, E00010597!, K000737849!). [Image available at https://w.jacq.org/ W0131822].</p> <p>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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D58D86FB37FDB9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D58F12FEE7FB55.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus hemithyrsus Handel-Mazzetti 1933	<div><p>24. Rubus hemithyrsus Handel-Mazzetti (1933: 488)</p> <p>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 W0131823!, isolectotype: E00010601!). [Image available at https://w.jacq.org/ W0131823].</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D58F12FEE7FB55	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D589EEFD33F9E5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus malifolius Focke 1890	<div><p>25. Rubus malifolius Focke (1890: t. 1947)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Hupeh [Hubei], District of Chienshi, A. Henry 5794 (barcode K000737665!, isolectotypes: BM000622260!, GH00040667!, LE 01015291!, US00097945!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737665].</p> <p>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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD9FFCDA9D589EEFD33F9E5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD9FFC2A9D58B5EFEDCFF0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus rufus var. palmatifidus Cardot 1914	<div><p>26. Rubus rufus var. palmatifidus Cardot (1914: 304)</p> <p>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 P00755350!, isolectotypes: P00755351!, P00755352!, P00755353!, P00755354!, P00755355!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/ p/p00755350].</p> <p>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 ” &amp; “ 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD9FFC2A9D58B5EFEDCFF0D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58936FE85FA01.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus ourosepalus Cardot 1917	<div><p>29. Rubus ourosepalus Cardot (1917: 290)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— W. CHINA. July 1903, E.H.Wilson 3484 (barcode P00755302!, isolectotypes: A00040689!, A00133085!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755302].</p> <p>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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58936FE85FA01	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D588B9FA8BF86C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus polyodontus Handel-Mazzetti 1933	<div><p>30. Rubus polyodontus Handel-Mazzetti (1933: 484)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. W-Yünnan: In schattigen Gebüschen und Mischwäldern, 3000 m, VIII. 1917, Forrest 15838 (barcode W0131824!, isolectotype: E00010637!). [Image available at https://w.jacq. org/ W0131824].</p> <p>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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D588B9FA8BF86C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58D86FECEFD76.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus setchuenensis Bureau & Franchet 1891	<div><p>27. Rubus setchuenensis Bureau &amp; Franchet (1891: 46).</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Province du Se-tchuen [Sichuan], au Sud de Ta-tsien-lou, P.G. Bonvalot s.n. (barcode P00755367!, isolectotype:P00755366!).[Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/ mnhn/p/p00755367].</p> <p>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 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58D86FECEFD76	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58FD0FB00FBFB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus viburnifolius Franchet 1895	<div><p>28. Rubus viburnifolius Franchet (1895: 63)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Yunnan: in silvis circa Tchen-fong-chan, Delavay s.n. (barcode P00746144!, isolectotype: P00746145!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/ p00746144].</p> <p>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 &amp; 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.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD6FFC2A9D58FD0FB00FBFB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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.text	03EF287EFFD6FFC3A9D58A89FE09FBEA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rubus calycinus Wallich ex Don 1825	<div><p>31. Rubus calycinus Wallich ex Don (1825: 235)</p> <p>Type (lectotype designated here):— NEPAL. Himalayas: Gosaingstahan, 1818, Wallich s.n. (barcode BM000522033!, isolectotypes: BM000522037!, BM000939762). [Image available at https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/ 7954bcdc-b03f-45ba-a33e-c8005e106de3].</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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 &amp; 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 &amp; 00301499), K (barcode 001111745, 000737908 &amp; 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.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF287EFFD6FFC3A9D58A89FE09FBEA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Idrees, Muhammad;Zhang, Zhiyong	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
