Bulletin of Forestry Science / Volume 3 / Issue 1 / Pages 147-156
previous article | next article

Modern Rubus taxonomy

Gergely Király, Bohumil Trávníček & Vojtěch Žíla

Correspondence

Correspondence: Király Gergely

Postal address: H-9400 Sopron, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky u. 4.

e-mail: gkiraly[at]emk.nyme.hu

Abstract

The genus Rubus L. with over 700 European species belongs to the taxonomically most complicated groups of vascular plants. The representatives of the genus form a complex of few sexual diploid species and a plenty of polyploid apomicts. New morphotypes originated as result of occasional hybridization and segregation can be stabilized by renewed apomixis. Batological research was suffered from methodological and taxonomical inaccuracies for a long time, with the description of innumerable individual morphotypes, which were mainly resolved by the new, modern species concept developed in the last 40 years ("Weberian reform"). A scale of distribution extents was established and widely accepted for taxonomic classification, and only uniform morphotypes with sufficiently large distribution areas have been classified as species. The authors give an overview on development of taxonomical concepts and special methods of modern Rubus research beside a short summary of former and recent batological activity in Hungary.

Keywords: Rubus, taxonomy, methodology, history of research, Hungary

References62

  • Amsellem L.; Noyer J. L. and Hossaert-McKey M. 2001: Evidence for a switch in the reproductive biology of Rubus alceifolius (Rosaceae) towards apomixis, between its native range and its area of introduction. American Journal of Botany 88: 2243–2251. DOI: 10.2307/3558386
  • Bartha D. 2009: Rubus L. Szeder. 204–206. In: Király G. (szerk.): Új magyar füvészkönyv. Határozókulcsok. Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Jósvafő.
  • Borbás V. 1887: Vas vármegye növényföldrajza és flórája. Vas megyei Gazdasági Egyesület, Szombathely.
  • Borbás V. 1900: A Balaton flórája. A Balaton tavának és partmellékének növényföldrajza és edényes növényzete. Magyar Földrajzi Társaság, Budapest.
  • Cain M. D. and Shelton M. G. 2003: Fire effects on germination of seeds from Rhus and Rubus: competitors to pine during natural regeneration. New Forests, 26: 51–64. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024406209842
  • Clark L. V.; Evans K. J. and Jasieniuk M. 2012: Origins and distribution of invasive Rubus fruticosus L. agg. (Rosaceae) clones in the Western United States. Biological Invasions, 15: 1331–1342. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-012-0369-8
  • Edees E. S. and Newton A. 1988: Brambles of the British Isles. The Ray Society, London.
  • Evans K. J. and Weber H. E. 2003: Rubus anglocandicans (Rosaceae) is the most widespread taxon of European blackberry in Australia. Australian Systematic Botany, 16: 527–537. DOI: 10.1071/sb02037
  • Focke W. O. 1877: Synopsis Ruborum Germaniae. Naturwiss. Verein zu Bremen, Bremen.
  • Focke W. O. 1910–1914: Species Ruborum. Monographiae generis Rubi Prodromus. E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
  • Fotelli M.; Rudolph P.; Rennenberg H. and Geßler A. 2005: Irradiance and temperature affect the competitive interference of blackberry on the physiology of European beech seedlings. New Phytologist, 165: 453–462. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01255.x
  • Gáyer Gy. 1921: Prodromus der Brombeerenflora Ungarns. Magyar Botanikai Lapok, 20: 1–45.
  • Gáyer Gy. 1924–1925: Rubus L. Szeder. 485–518. In: Jávorka S.: Magyar Flóra (Flora Hungarica), Studium, Budapest.
  • Gustaffson Ä. 1943: The genesis of the European blackberry flora. Lunds Univ. Ärsskr., Nov. ser., 39: 1–200.
  • Halácsy E. 1891: Oesterreichische Brombeeren. Verhandlungen der zool.-bot. Gesellschaft Wien, 41: 197–294.
  • Hayek A. 1916: Zur Kenntnis der Rubus-Flora des Semmeringgebietes in Niederösterreich. Verhandlungen der zool.-bot. Gesellschaft Wien, 66: 438–462.
  • Heslop-Harrison Y. 1968: Rubus L. 7–25. In: Tutin T. G.; Heywood V. H.; Burges N. A.; Moore D. M.; Valentine D. H.; Walters S. M.; Webb D. A.; Ball P. W., Chater A. O. and Ferguson I. K. (eds): Flora Europaea 2. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Holub J. 1991: Eight new Rubus species described from Czech Republic. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica, 26: 331–340. DOI: 10.1007/bf02912753
  • Holub J. 1992: A preliminary checklist of Rubus species occurring in the Czech Republic. Preslia, 64: 97–132.
  • Holub J. 1995: Rubus L. ostružiník (maliník, moruška, ostružinec, ostružiníček). 54–206. In: Slavík B. (ed.) Květena České republiky 4, Academia, Praha.
  • Holub J. 1997: Some considerations and thoughts on the pragmatic classification of apomictic Rubus taxa. Osnabrücker Naturwiss. Mitt., 23: 147–155.
  • Jávorka S. és Csapody V. 1929–1934: A magyar flóra képekben. Iconographia Florae Hungaricae. K. M. Természettudományi Társulat, Budapest.
  • Jávorka S. és Csapody V. 1975: Iconographia florae partis Austro-Orientalis Europae Centralis. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
  • Király G.; Kurtto A.; Maurer W.; Trávníček B.; Weber H. E. and Žíla V. 2010: New records of Rubus from Hungary. 33–316. In: Kurtto A.; Weber H. E.; Lampinen R. and Sennikov A. N. (eds): Atlas Florae Europaeae. Distribution of Vascular Plants in Europe, Rosaceae (Rubus) 15. The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe & Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki.
  • Kiss Á. 1951: Rubus L. Szeder. 251–270. In: Soó R. és Jávorka S.: A magyar növényvilág kézikönyve. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
  • Kiss Á. 1966: Rubus L. Szeder. 125–189. In: Soó R.: A magyar flóra és vegetáció rendszertani-növényföldrajzi kézikönyve 2. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
  • Kollmann J.; Steinger T. and Roy B. A. 2000: Evidence of sexuality in European Rubus (Rosaceae) species based on AFLP and allozyme analysis. American Journal of Botany, 87: 1592–1598. DOI: 10.2307/2656735
  • Kraft T. and Nybom H. 1995: DNA fingerprinting and biometry can solve some taxonomic problems in apomictic blackberries (Rubus subgen. Rubus). Watsonia, 20: 329–343.
  • Krahulcová A. and Holub J. 1997: Chromosome number variation in the genus Rubus in the Czech Republic. I. Preslia, 68: 241–255.
  • Krahulcová A.; Trávníček B. and Šarhanová P. 2013: Karyological variation in the genus Rubus, subgenus Rubus: new data from the Czech Republic and synthesis of the current knowledge of European species. Preslia, 85: 19–39.
  • Kuntze O. 1867: Reform deutscher Brombeeren. Beitraege zur Kenntnis der Eigenschaften der Arten und Bastarde des Genus Rubus L. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.
  • Kupcsok S. 1907: Adatok Bakabánya Rubusainak ismeretéhez. Magyar Botanikai Lapok 6: 239–267.
  • Kupcsok S. és Kupcsok S. T. 1910: Újabb adatok Bakabánya és vidéke Rubusainak ismeretéhez. Magyar Botanikai Lapok, 9: 199–275.
  • Kurtto A.; Weber H. E.; Lampinen R. and Sennikov A. N. (eds) 2010: Atlas Florae Europaeae. Distribution of vascular plants in Europe. 15. Rosaceae (Rubus). The Committe for Mapping the Flora of Europea & Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki.
  • Leute G. H. und Maurer W. 1977: Zur Verbreitung einiger Brombeerarten (Rubus, Sectio Eufruticosi) in Kärnten. Carinthia II, 167(87): 277–321.
  • Loos G. H. 2008: Pflanzengeographische Beiträge zur chorologischen, taxonomischen und naturschutzfachlichen Bewertung der Sippendiversität agamospermer (apomiktischer) Blütenpflanzenkomplexe: Das Beispiel Rubus subgenus Rubus (Rosaceae). Dissertation, Fakultät Geowissenschaften, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
  • Mattsson T. and Oredsson A. 2009: Franskt björnbär och knölbjörnbär nya för Sverige. Svenks Botanisk Tidskrift, 103: 13–23.
  • Matzke-Hajek G. 2001: Revision and typification of brambles (Rubus L., Rosaceae) described by P. J. Müller from the Weissenburg region and the Palatinate (France and Germany). Candollea, 56: 171–195.
  • Maurer W. und Drescher A. 2000: Die Verbreitung einiger Brombeerarten (Rubus subgen. Rubus) in Österreich und im angrenzenden Slowenien. Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. Steiermark, 130: 141–168.
  • Mountford E.; Savill P. S. and Bebber D. P. 2006: Patterns of regeneration and ground vegetation associated with canopy gaps in a managed beechwood in southern England. Forestry, 79: 389–408. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpl024
  • Newton A. 1980: Progress in British Rubus studies. Watsonia, 13: 35–40.
  • Nobis M. 2008: Ausbreitung gebietsfremder Arten: Invasive Neophyten auch im Wald? Wald und Holz, 2008/8: 46–49.
  • Petrovics Zs. 1985: A Barcsi Borókás Tájvédelmi Körzet Rubusairól. Dunántúli Dolgozatok Természettudományi Sorozat, 5: 51–58.
  • Ryde U. 2011: Arguments for a narrow species concept in Rubus sect. Corylifolii. Nordic Journal of Botany 29: 708–721. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01203.x
  • Sabransky H. 1915: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der steirischen Rubusflora. Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. Steiermark, 52: 253–291.
  • Šarhanová P.; Vašut R. J.; Dančák M.; Bureš P. and Trávníček B. 2012: New insights into the variability of reproduction modes in European populations of Rubus subgen. Rubus: how sexual are polyploid brambles? Sexual Plant Reproduction, 25: 319–335. DOI: 10.1007/s00497-012-0200-9
  • Simon T. 1992: A magyarországi edényes flóra határozója. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.
  • Simon T. 2000: A magyarországi edényes flóra határozója. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.
  • Soó R. 1980: A magyar flóra és vegetáció rendszertani-növényföldrajzi kézikönyve 6. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
  • Sudre H. 1908–1913: Rubi Europae vel Monographia Iconibus illustrata Ruborum Europae. Librairie des sciences naturelles, Paris.
  • Tinya F.; Mihók B.; Márialigeti S.; Mag Zs. and Ódor P. 2009: A comparison of three indirect methods for estimating understory light at different spatial scales in temperate mixed forests. Community Ecology, 10: 81–90. DOI: 10.1556/comec.10.2009.1.10
  • Waldstein F. és Kitaibel P. 1805: Descriptiones et icones plantarum rariorum Hungariae 2. Vindobonae.
  • Weber H. E. 1973: Die Gattung Rubus L. (Rosaceae) im nordwestlichen Europa. Phanerogamarum Monographiae 7, Lehre.
  • Weber H. E. 1985: Rubi Westfalici. Die Brombeeren Westfalens und des Raumes Osnabrück (Rubus L., Subgenus Rubus). Westf. Museum Naturk., Landschaftsverband, Münster.
  • Weber H. E. 1995: Rubus. 284–595. In: Weber H. E. (ed.): Gustav Hegi, Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, Ed. 3, Vol. 4/2A:, Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, Oxford.
  • Weber H. E. 1996: Former and modern taxonomic treatment of the apomictic Rubus complex. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica, 31: 373–380. DOI: 10.1007/bf02815381
  • Weber H. E. 1998: Bislang nicht typisierte Namen von Rubus-Arten in Mitteleuropa. Feddes Repertorium, 109: 393–406. DOI: 10.1002/fedr.19981090511
  • Weber H. E. 2003: Gebüsche, Hecken, Krautsäume. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
  • Weber H. E. 2009: Batologici europaei illustrati et breviter descripti. URL
  • Weber H. E. und Maurer W. 1991: Kommentierte Checkliste der in Österreich nachgewiesenen Arten der Gattung Rubus L. (Rosaceae). Phyton (Austria), 31: 67–79.
  • Willoughby J.; Balandier P.; Bentsen N. S.; McCarthy N. and Claridge D. (eds) 2009: Forest vegetation management in Europe: current practice and future requirements. COST Office, Brussels.
  • Zieliński J. 2004: The genus Rubus (Rosaceae) in Poland. Polish Botanical Studies, 16: 1–300.

    • Open Acces

    For non-commercial purposes, let others distribute and copy the article, and include in a collective work, as long as they cite the author(s) and the journal, and provided they do not alter or modify the article.

    Cite this article as:

    Király, G., Trávníček, B. & Žíla, V. (2013): Modern Rubus taxonomy. Bulletin of Forestry Science, 3(1): 147-156. (in Hungarian)

    Volume 3, Issue 1
    Pages: 147-156

    First published:
    28 June 2013

    More articles
    by this authors

    2

    More articles by this authors in the Bulletin of Forestry Science