Systematics of the Rubus fruticosus aggregate (Rosaceae) and other exotic Rubus taxa in Australia

Abstract

Exotic Rubus taxa in Australia have been revised following consultation with European and North American experts in Rubus, allied with studies of variation in patterns of DNA restriction fragments and morphology. Many of these taxa have names that are applied for the first time in Australia (prefaced with a †). The major focus of the work was the Rubus fruticosus L. aggregate and taxa of this aggregate covered here are R. anglocandicans A. Newton, R. cissburiensis W.C. Barton & Ridd., †R. echinatus Lindl., †R. erythrops Edees & A. Newton, R. laciniatus Willd., R. leightonii Lees ex Leight. †R. leucostachys Schleich. ex Sm., †R. phaeocarpus W.C.R. Watson, R. polyanthemus Lindeb., †R. riddelsdellii Rilstone, †R. rubritinctus W.C.R. Watson, R. ulmifolius Schott (including R. ulmifolius var. ulmifolius and †R. ulmifolius var. anoplothyrsus Sudre), and R. vestitus Weihe, along with two undescribed taxa, Rubus sp. Scott Creek (D.E. Symon 16504) and Rubus sp. Tasmania (J.R. Hosking 1551). Other naturalised taxa are R. alceifolius Poir., R. ellipticus Sm., R. idaeus L., †R. laudatus A. Berger, †R. loganobaccus L.H. Bailey, †R. philadelphicus Blanch., R. roribaccus (L.H. Bailey) Rydb. and R. rugosus Sm. Patterns of morphological and molecular variation among individuals of the R. fruticosus agg. in Australia were examined. In phenetic analyses based on examination of 137 herbarium specimens and 27 morphological characters, taxa showed varying degrees of separation. Some taxa, for example R. anglocandicans and the two varieties of R. ulmifolius, formed distinct groups in these analyses whereas there was considerable overlap among individuals of other species. Fifty M13/HaeIII DNA-banding patterns (phenotypes) were identified among 198 collections from the R. fruticosus agg. across Australia. Thirty-five DNA phenotypes were correlated with 15 taxa of the R. fruticosus agg.; the remaining 15 DNA types correlated poorly or were determined with only a moderate level of confidence. R. anglocandicans, R. echinatus, R. leightonii, R. leucostachys, R. sp. Tasmania, R. ulmifolius and R. vestitus had two or more DNA phenotypes whereas only one DNA phenotype was observed for the remaining eight taxa. Taxa that were more distinct with respect to their DNA phenotypes also tended to be more distinct with respect to morphology based on a Mantel matrix correlation test. Within taxa that were difficult to tell apart morphologically, those sharing the same DNA phenotype were considered members of the same Rubus taxon. These results are discussed in the context of the evolution and ecology of the R. fruticosus agg. in Australia and in relation to the incomplete taxonomy of Rubus in Europe and North America.