Lexicon of infrageneric names in Rubus (Rosaceae: Rubeae)

Introduction The genus Rubus L. (Rosaceae Juss., Rosoideae Arn., Rubeae Dumort.) is a large and complex taxon with estimates of the number of species ranging from 350 to 700. The genus is found on all continents (except Antarctica) mainly in temperate environments with representatives extending into near-arctic and subtropical regions. Commonly termed brambles, members of the genus are well known to gardeners and wild food enthusiasts for here are such fleshy fruits as blackberries, dewberries, loganberries, raspberries, thimbleberries, and cloudberries. The infrageneric nomenclatural morass of this large genus is not resolved here although nearly 550 infrageneric names are recorded. Even so this summary should not be taken as the final word on this subject as there are numerous publications, especially in Europe, that may harbour long-forgotten, overlooked, or ignored infrageneric names. Thus, finding the earliest place of validation for names, especially those not assigned to the ranks of subgenus, section, subsection, series or subseries, remains a challenge. Likewise, numerous occurrences have been encountered of what may be the same name (i.e. with the same spelling), and that most likely are isonyms but that may turn out to be later homonyms. This latter task I leave to those more familiar with the genus than I. Importantly, for this report, readers should understand that in the vast majority of cases, except when the evidence is clear, I have considered all such names to be isonyms, rather than later homonyms, and thus have corrected new combinations to the first place of publication of a given name even though the combining author cited a later author and/or bibliographic citation. The reasons for this summary are twofold. First this is an axillary report that resulted from an effort to account for the 475 types of Rubus at the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium, Cornell University (BH; Reveal & Nixon 2014) and, second, to evaluate the sectional names inadvertently proposed by O. A. Stevens (Reveal & Ertter 2014) in this and other genera of the rose and related families that might have an impact upon a soon-to-be-published volume of Flora of North America north of Mexico. The treatment of Rubus in the latter work currently does not employ infrageneric names taxonomically, but should this be done in the future, it is hoped that this contribution might be of some value. The term “lectotype” has long been misapplied in a sense not permitted by the International Code of Nomenclature (McNeill et al. 2012) which restricts the term to a specimen or illustration. For a supraspecific names (or “a subdivision of a genus”), the equivalent term is “designated type” (Art. 22.2); this expression is given here as “DT.”. The expression “original type”, however, is here abbreviated here simply as “T.”. Ten lists of names, nine of which are of validly published names, are given below according to rank: genus (24 names), subgenus (24 epithets), section (120 epithets), subsection (61 epithets), series (108 epithets), subseries (10 epithets), grex (11 epithets), nothosubgenus (6 epithets), and unranked (174 epithets). A total of eight invalid epithets have been proposed historically based on the type of the genus. The rank grex is permitted under provisions of Art. 4.3 of the Code. To obtain a full scientific name, add “Rubus L.” and the rank abbreviation before each of the epithets, e.g., Rubus L. subg. Cylactis (Raf.) Focke. Compilation of the information presented here is based on the efforts of others, the most notable being the men and women who have long laboured on what is now the International Plant Name Index (IPNI) and the singular effort of the late Richard Pankhurst, ending in 2007, to capture all names of Rubus world-wide (see http://www.bgbm.fuberlin.de/IOPI/GPC/results.asp).