(2706) Proposal to conserve the name <scp><i>Rubus parviflorus</i></scp> Nutt. against <scp><i>R. parviflorus</i></scp> Weston (<i>Rosaceae</i>)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
(2706) Rubus parviflorus Nutt., Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 1: 308. 14 Jul 1818 [Angiosp.: Ros.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: on the island of Michilimackinak, Lake Huron, Nuttall (PH No. 003516 [barcode PH00021530]). (H) Rubus parviflorus Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 258. 1770, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Van de Beek in Adansonia 38: 48. 2016): Greece, Crete, Tournefort 6073 (P-TRF). Recently, it was noted by Van de Beek (in Adansonia 38: 35–53. 2016) that a pre-Linnaean Tournefort polynomial had been validly published as Rubus parviflorus Weston (Bot. Univ. 1: 258. 1770), creating this name approximately 48 years earlier than R. parviflorus Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 1: 308. 1818). Therefore, the latter name, being a later homonym of the former, is illegitimate (Art. 53.1; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). The two species involved are neither morphologically similar nor closely related, with R. parviflorus Weston part of the nearly circumboreal Rubus subg. Rubus (blackberries), and R. parviflorus Nutt. part of the North American Rubus subg. Anoplobatus (thimbleberries). Rubus parviflorus Weston applies to a localized species from the eastern Mediterranean and has been overlooked in various relevant European floristic works (e.g., Heslop-Harrison in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 2. 1968; Turland & al., Fl. Cretan Area. 1993; Kurtto & al., Atlas Fl. Eur. 15. 2010). Through lectotype designations, Van de Beek (l.c.: 46–48) treated R. parviflorus Weston as a heterotypic synonym of R. sanctus Schreb. (Icon. Descr. Pl.: 15, t. 8. 1766) and as a homotypic synonym of “R. creticus L.” (Fl. Palaest.: 21. 1756; Amoen. Acad. 4: 457. 1759). However, Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 209. 2007) indicated only six validly published names in Linnaeus's Flora Palaestina, none of which were “R. creticus”, with each of those six names having descriptive footnotes. Dozens of names in Flora Palaestina, many apparently new, are italicized, and Linnaeus treated these as provisional “names” for things not yet determined (“… nondum vero determinatas, literis cursivis, ut vocant, annotavi …”; Linnaeus, l.c. 1756: 10, l.c. 1759: 448). All but those six lacked descriptive footnotes, and those without footnotes have since been considered nomina nuda, including “R. creticus”. With “R. creticus L.” eliminated from consideration, R. parviflorus Weston becomes a synonym of R. sanctus Schreb., both names citing the same Tournefort polynomial “Rubus creticus, triphyllus, flore parvo” (Tournefort, Coroll. Inst. Rei Herb.: 43. 1703) and typified on the same material from Crete, where only a single Rubus species occurs (Van de Beek, l.c.: 46). Rubus parviflorus Nutt. is the earliest name for a widespread North American species, native to Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario), Mexico (Chihuahua, Sonora), and the United States (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming). The name is accepted in well over 50 North American floras and field guides (e.g., McGregor in McGregor & Barkley, Fl. Great Plains: 403–404. 1986; Gleason & Cronquist, Man. Vasc. Pl. N.E. U.S. & Adj. Can.: 249–250. 1991; Pojar & McKinnon, Pl. Pacif. N.W. Coast: 77. 1994; Holmgren in Cronquist & al., Intermt. Fl. 3A: 144. 1997; Brandenburg, Natl. Wildl. Fed. Field Guide Wildfl. N. Amer.: 487. 2010; Alice in Baldwin & al., Jepson Man.: 1204. 2012; Alice & al. in Fl. N. Amer. 9: 48. 2014; Villaseñor in Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 87: 559–902. 2016). Rubus parviflorus Nutt. has horticultural and economic interest as well (e.g., Rehder, Man. Cult. Trees Shrubs: 412. 1940; Bailey Hortorium Staff, Hortus Third: 986. 1976; Huxley & al., Dict. Gard. 4: 144. 1992; Zasada & Tappeiner in Bonner & Karrfalt, Woody Pl. Seed Man.: 984–996. 2008; León & Wiersema, World Econ. Pl., ed. 2: 599. 2013), and through cultivation the species has become naturalized in parts of Europe (Kurtto & al., l.c.: 41). Furthermore, R. parviflorus Nutt. is widely represented in the general scientific literature, with over 2500 citations of this name in Google Scholar (scholar.google.com, accessed 24 Jun 2019), 1380 since the year 2000. The next available name to use in place of R. parviflorus Nutt. is R. nutkanus Moc. ex Ser. (in Candolle, Prodr. 2: 566. 1825). So far, R. nutkanus has been taken up as the accepted name for this species only by Giblin & al. (Fl. Pacif. N.W.: 212. 2018). It is proposed here to conserve the name R. parviflorus Nutt. against the earlier homonym R. parviflorus Weston (Art. 14.10). Rubus parviflorus Nutt. has a long-term, popular usage for the widespread and occasionally cultivated and naturalized North American species, whereas the name R. parviflorus Weston has had little to no usage since its creation. Such an action would do no harm to the recognition of taxa in the eastern Mediterranean flora and would be of great benefit to those using the North American flora. DHG, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6562-3880 I thank Gretchen Wade (Harvard University Botany Libraries) for assistance with obtaining some literature, Mark Garland and Gerry Moore (USDA NRCS NPDT) for reviewing an early draft, and John Wiersema (Dept. of Botany, Smithsonian Institution) for carefully editing this manuscript.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».