(2706) Proposal to conserve the name <scp><i>Rubus parviflorus</i></scp> Nutt. against <scp><i>R. parviflorus</i></scp> Weston (<i>Rosaceae</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".