Beek (2016) argued that Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston was the correct name of the taxon that was then called R. canescens DC., and which was previously known as R. tomentosus Borkh. Moreover, R. canescens was stated to be not identical with R. aetnicus, but rather a form of R. × collinus DC. Matzke-Hajek (2016) raised objections to both statements. Therefore, the aim of this study was to thoroughly analyse both names and support this analysis with field work at the type localities and by DNA data. Despite the correspondence at the investigated conservative DNA loci, the investigation showed that the two species are morphologically different and must be conceived as separate taxa. According to the rules of the ICN, R. aetnicus, as the earliest available legitimate name, must be accepted as the correct name for R. tomentosus auct. non Borkh. There is no reason not to use the name R. aetnicus, which has not been commonly used until now. It is unambiguous, while any other name could cause confusion if it would be conserved. Other scientific names clarified in this study are R. aetnaeus Tornab. (= R. ulmifolius Schott), R. aetnensis Tornab. (= R. aetnicus) and R. argenteus Gmel.
|Numero di pagine||9|
|Rivista||Nordic Journal of Botany|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2021|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes