Rubus calycinus Wallich ex Don 1825
Creators: name: Idrees, Muhammad
name: Zhang, Zhiyong
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Magnoliopsida
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus
Rubus calycinus

description: 31. Rubus calycinus Wallich ex Don (1825: 235)
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].
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.
description: Published as part of 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), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on pages 21-22, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/7009287