Rubus aetnicus Cupani ex Weston and R. canescens DC. (Rosaceae): an analysis

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