Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Former and modern taxonomic treatment of the apomicticRubus complex

  • Apomixis and Taxonomy Proceedings of the Symposium held in Pruhonice, Czech Republic 1995; edited by A.J. Richards, J. Kirschner, J. Stepanek & K. Marhold
  • Published:
Folia Geobotanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of the taxonomy of the European bramble flora is discussed. Previous taxonomic concepts were mainly (1) description of each different bramble bush as a species of its own, (2) treatment of bramble taxa with hybrid formulas, (3) arranging of bramble taxa as infraspecific taxa within an artificial system, (4) creation of special taxonomic units like “agamospecies”. In modern taxonomy only well stabilized apomicts with a regional or wider distribution are taken into consideration and treated as species. Merely locally distributed brambles or the countless individual biotypes (spontaneous hybrids and their derivatives) are no longer a subject of special taxonomic treatment. The research into bramble flora has made considerable progress during the last 25 years, and the species of large parts of Europe are now well known including their distribution which is often illustrated by detailed maps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boulay N. (1864–1869):Ronces des Vosges. Rambervillers & St. Dié.

  • Dostál J. (1948): Rod 250.Rubus L. Ostružiník—Ostružina. In:Dostál J. (ed.),Kvêtena ĈSR (Flora of the ĈSR), Ĉeskoslovenská botanická spoleĉnost, Praha, pp. 572–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerster A. (1878):Flora excursoria des Regierungsbezirks Aachen. Aachen.

  • Foerster A. (1879): Ueber die Polymorphie der GattungRubus (Brombeere). In:Festschrift Begrüssung 34. Versammlung Deutscher Philologen Trier, Trier & Bonn, pp. 151–177.

  • Genevier G. (1869): Essai monographique sur lesRubus du Bassin de la Loire.Mém. Soc. Acad. Maine Loire 24: 1–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genevier G. (1881):Monograpie des Rubusdu Bassin de la Loire. Ed. 2. Paris & Nantes.

  • Grant V. (1971):Plant speciation. Columbia University Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson øA. (1943): The genesis of the European blackberry flora.Acta Univ. Lund. N.S., Sect. 2. 39(6): 1–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holub J. (1995): 4.Rubus L.—ostružiník. In:Slavík B. (ed.).,Kvêtena Ĉeské republiky 4 (Flora of the Czech Republic 4), Academia, Praha, pp. 54–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller R. (1919):Übersicht über die schweizerischen Rubi. Beilage Ber. Gymnasium Industrieschule Winterthur Schuljahr 1918/19, Winterthur.

  • Kinscher H. (1909): Aliquot Rubi novi.Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 7: 78–82, 341–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause E.H.L. (1899):Nova synopsis ruborum germaniae et virginiae 1. Saarlouis.

  • Kuntze (1867):Reform deutscher Brombeeren. Leipzig.

  • Lidforss B. (1914): Resumé seiner Arbeiten überRubus.Z. Indukt. Abstammungs-Vererbungsl. 12: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnaeus C. (1753):Species plantarum. Holmiae.

  • Löve Á. &Löve D. (1974): Nomenclatural adjustments in the Yugoslavian flora II. Pteridophytes and Dicotyledons.Preslia 46: 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller P.J. (1858): Beschreibung der in der Umgegend von Weissenburg am Rhein wildwachsenden Arten der GattungRubus, nach beobachtungen gemacht in den Jahren 1856 und 1857.Flora 41: 129–140, 149–157, 163–174, 177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller P.J. (1859): Versuch einer monographischen Darstellung der gallo-germanischen Arten der GattungRubus.Jahresber. Pollichia 16/17: 74–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher A. (1959): Beitrag zur Brombeerflora Bielefelds.Ber. Naturwiss. Vereins Bielefeld 15: 228–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudre H. (1908–1913):Rubi Europae. Paris.

  • Syme J.T.B. (1864):Rubus L. In:Syme J.T.B., Smith J.E. & Sowerby J. (eds.),English Botany 3, Ed. 3, London, pp. 157–197.

  • Weber H.E. (1977): Die ehemalige und jetzige Brombeerflora von Mennighüffen, Kreis Herford, Ausgangsgebiet der europäischenRubus-Forschung durchK. E. A. Weihe (1779–1834).Ber. Naturwiss. Vereins Bielefeld 23: 161–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H.E. (1981):Revision der Sektion Corylifolii (Gattung Rubus, Rosaceae)in Skandinavien und im nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Sonderbände Naturwiss. Vereins Hamburg 4. Paul Parey, Hamburg & Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H.E. (1985):Rubi Westfalici. Die Brombeeren Westfalens und des Raumes Osnabrück (RubusL., Subgenus Rubus). Westf. Museum Naturkunde, Münster i. W.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H.E. (1987): Beiträge zu einer Revision der GattungRubus L. in der Schweiz.Bot. Helv. 97: 117–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H.E. (1992): Kartierung der Brombeeren (GattungRubus L. Subgen.Rubus) in Deutschland und angrenzenden Ländern.Florist. Rundbriefe 26: 116–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H.E. (1995):Rubus L. In:Weber, H.E. (ed.),Hegi G.,Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa 4/2A, Ed. 3, Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin etc., pp. 284–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weihe K.E. & Nees von Esenbeck C.G. (1822–1827):Rubi Germanici. Elberfeldae.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vechta, Biology, Driverstrasse 22, D-49364, Vechta, Germany

    Heinrich E. Weber

Authors
  1. Heinrich E. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, H.E. Former and modern taxonomic treatment of the apomicticRubus complex. Folia Geobot 31, 373–380 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02815381

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02815381

Keywords

Search

Navigation