Rubus ecklonii Focke 1874
Creators: name: Beek, Abraham Van De
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Magnoliopsida
Rosales
Rosaceae
Rubus
Rubus ecklonii

description: 9. Rubus ecklonii Focke (1874: 176).   
 Type:— s. loc., s. dat., Sonder s.n. (holotype MEL 2434495). (Fig. 7A)   
 Epitype (designated here):— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: Tulbagh, Winterhoek road, ruderal area on farm yard, 21 November 2019, Beek 2019.97 (L).   
 Note on type: —Besides the sample in Sonder’s herbarium, Focke (1874) also mentions in his protologue a specimen in BREM. This sample (SOUTH AFRICA. Eastern Cape: Nieuwepost ad Katrivier, Ecklon & Zeyher 1707, herb. Focke, as ‘ R. rigidus Smith?’) is only a leaf, as Focke (1874) already wrote. As the protologue refers to an inflorescence, the description must have been based on the specimen in Sonder’s herbarium. Since it is the only specimen with an inflorescence that Focke (1874) mentions, it is a holotype.   
 Primocane (Figs 7B–E) arching, mounding, diam. 5–9 mm, furrowed, very densely appressed stellate hairy, with many (sub-)sessile glands; prickles 1–11 per 5 cm, declining or curved, from 1–4 mm broad, often somewhat compressed base 2–5 mm long; stipules (linear-)lanceolate, 10–18 mm long, densely grey hairy. Leaves (Fig. 7F) 2- jugate pinnate or 3-foliolate, adaxially glabrous, abaxially densely white tomentose; serrature double, unequal, rather fine, short periodical, teeth triangular; petiole 3–6 cm, densely appressed stellate hairy, with 4–14 declining or curved prickles; basal leaflets ovate, sometimes divided, acute or gradually short attenuate, 57–72 mm long, width–length index 0.57–0.86, petiolule 2–6 mm; central leaflet of pinnate leaves from roundish or narrowed base ovate, rhombic or obovate, acute or gradually short attenuate, 49–58 mm long, width–length index 0.53–0.81, petiolule 8–17 mm; central leaflets of 3-foliolate leaves with cordate base, broad ovate, often lobate, acute to rather long gradually attenuate; because both central leaflet and basal leaflets can be divided or not, leaves can be 3-foliolate, pinnate or paniculate or combination of these. Flowering branch (Fig. 7G) furrowed, densely short stellate hairy with many sessile glands; prickles 3–9 per 5 cm, somewhat compressed from 3–5 mm broad base slightly curved, up to 4 mm long. Leaves (Fig. 7H) 3-foliolate, or basal ones 4-foliolate because of divided central leaflet, apical one simple; serrature double, hardly periodical, rather fine to mediocre, sharp triangular, with straight mucros; central leaflet with rounded or somewhat attenuate base, ovate or elliptic, acute or very short pointed, 49–76 mm long, width–length index (0.46–)0.60–0.81, length of petiolule 12–31% of length of leaflet; petiolule of basal leaflets 0–3 mm. Inflorescence (Figs 7I–K) pyramidal, with 2–4 axillary branches, lowest with 5–10 flowers, with dense apex, densely short tomentose, with sessile glands and scattered to rather numerous prickles; pedicels (Fig. 7L) shorter to longer than sepals, densely tomentose, with (sub-)sessile glands and 0–10 pricklets. Flowers: sepals (Fig. 7M) ovate-lanceolate, short pointed, 7–10 mm long, patent to erect, grey tomentose, with (sub-)sessile glands; petals pinkish red, ovate, 6–9 × 9–12 mm; stamens equalling styles, deep purple red; styles deep purple red; ovaries glabrous; receptacle with few long hairs. Ripe fruit black (Fig. 7N).   
 Diagnostic characters: —Characteristic are the furrowed stems with dense stellate hairs and not very strong or numerous prickles, the leaves that can be 3-foliolate, pinnate or paniculate or a combination of these, all on the same plant. The inflorescences are large, rich flowering and bear good fruits.   
 Notes: —Some authors (e.g. Arnold & De Wet 1993, Quattrorochi 1999, Henderson 2011) suppose R. eckloni is identical with R. apetalus or very closely related to it (Spies et al. 1987). This might be due to the description in Focke (1911), which is obviously based on the taxon to which the leaf in his own herbarium belongs and does not correspond with his protologue of R. ecklonii (Focke 1874) and with the type. This specimen in BREM is indeed a leaf of R. cryptopetalus, which has generally been called R. apetalus. The type is certainly not R. cryptopetalus because it has large flowers and the leaves are abaxially more tomentose than even the most-grey samples of R. cryptopetalus. However, the confusion about the identity of R. ecklonii continues.   
 A specimen collected by Zeyher in the Kloof near Cape Town (NBG, Herb. Mus. Austr.-Afric. 35398), is very similar to the type of R. ecklonii, even to such an extent that it probably belongs to the same collection. This specimen is provided with a good label with the text: ‘4847. Rubus /Schattige steinische Stellen in der Kloof oberhalb der Kapstadt/ November’. Because of the similarity between this sample and the type, it is not far-fetched to suppose that the sample in NBG is the original collection and that Sonder obtained a duplicate without a label. Both specimens differ from R. rigidus by short petiolules of the lateral leaflets and even more by rather large petals. So R. ecklonii must be considered as a separate species.Another specimen from Rondebosch (Rondebosch, 1831, Zeyher s.n., SAM 15646, only the left hand inflorescence), obviously is the same taxon.   
 In spite of intensive investigations south of Cape Town, no plants that correspond with R. ecklonii could be traced. The sites are now in the city area.   
 As with R. rigidus, searches were made in the wider region to find plants corresponding with the type of R. ecklonii. A specimen in NBG collected by Zeyher in Winterhoek near Tulbagh was helpful in this regard. It is similar to the type, though the serrature is sharper. Plants that were found north of Tulbagh obviously represent the same taxon. Here we come across another phenomenon in old collections: researchers often took a good manageable piece of a shrub. They could only take a limited number of plants, which preferably could fit into a collecting box. Most collections of Rubus from that time are small inflorescences. This also seems the case with Zeyher’s collection from Winterhoek. A small inflorescence taken from the present living plants corresponds well with Zeyher’s piece, but beautiful strong inflorescences give a different aspect. A collection taken from a plant at the Winterhoek road was chosen as an epitype so that the full range of characteristics will be clear.   
Similar plants were collected at some localities between Grabouw and Fisherhaven.  
 Ecology: —Roadsides, ruderal areas.   
 Distribution: —The northern and eastern hills around Tafelberg; further on several places in the Winterhoek region, north of Tulbagh, and between Fisherhaven and Elgin Valley, Western Cape, South Africa.   
 Specimens:— SOUTH AFRICA. Western Cape: Rondebosch, 1831, Zeyher s.n. (SAM 15646, only the left hand inflorescence); Grabouw, Highlands Road, near Rozenhof Farm, 28 November 2019, Beek 2019.101 (L); Fisherhaven, at road R. 43, 6, 2 km NNE of Fisherhaven, 29 March 2017, Manning & Sochor RSA 40 /17 (NBG); Fisherhaven, R 43, east side, short before the turn off of the R44, 14 November 2019, Beek 2019.89 (L); 1833, Pappe s.n. (BREM _ 00002216, ‘ Rubus pinnatus’).
description: Published as part of Beek, Abraham Van De, 2021, Rubi Capenses: a further contribution to the knowledge of the genus Rubus (Rosaceae) in South Africa, pp. 1-71 in Phytotaxa 515 (1) on pages 27-29, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.515.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/8061143