Himalayan Blackberry Confusion

Thank you for the detailed answer. I hope someone does do that study. It would be great to get it finally sorted. I imagine it would be tricky to get the samples for R. armeniacus and R. bifrons when it came to U.S. pools. I suppose that to be safe, the bifrons samples could come from the eastern states, and the armeniacus samples from the western states, but then, maybe that would be compromising the goal of getting the full range for each. :woman_shrugging:

Do you have an opinion on how we should handle the iNat taxa in the meantime?

Here’s the problem with the European Blackberry Complex, which includes R. fruticosa, R. armeniaca, R. bifrons, R. ulmifolia, and others. (Some simplification in my explanation here.)

Most species reproduce sexually. A very common, widely used definition of the species is a group of organisms that breed with one another, producing fertile offspring. Even if they looks a bit different, they’re the same species if they breed together. Consider variation within the species humans, or mallard ducks, or dogs, etc. We can tell where the species boundaries are by who breeds with whom (producing fertile offspring). Within sexually reproducing species, genes get mixed up, so you can have blonds with blue eyes, blonds with brown eyes, brunettes with brown eyes, brunettes with blue eyes, etc.

Some species don’t have sex; they are asexual. Many of these reproduce by bulbs, rhizomes, or other obviously asexual means, but some plants are apomictic, producing seeds without sex. In asexual species, the genes don’t get mixed up, so you might get only blue-eyed blondes and brown-eyed brunettes, no other combinations, for example. Mutations introduce some variation to asexual species. To accommodate that variation, we tend to have broader species concepts for completely asexual species, though not all biologists agree.

Members of the European Blackberry Complex reproduce in a way that really messes with our species concepts. They mostly set seed asexually. What seem to be distinct individuals are actually clones, and a single clone might cover a whole county or more. However, blackberries also have sex. They may have sex even with distantly related members of the complex. The offspring of such crosses can look a bit different from the blackberry clones that were already spreading around the area. Are these clonal populations best thought of as different species or just different genetic individuals? How different do they have to be before we name them? Should every slightly different type be called a species? (Some people would argue yes, which is why you have 2000 named dandelion species in Europe.) If not, how much difference is necessary to name a species? This really messes with biologists minds. We don’t agree. We probably will never agree.

Meanwhile, the blackberries go their merry way, spreading asexually through their stems (canes), asexually through seeds, and occasionally through sexually produced seeds. They do not care about our human need for neat, mutually exclusive names for talking about the kinds of blackberries.

This is why when people disagree about the species concepts of Rubus bifrons, R. armeniacus, and R. ulmifolius, I Don’t Care. Call it what you want. I’ll try to follow the herd when/if there is evidence of agreement about what species names we will arbitrarily apply to these plants that don’t have species concepts the way we wish they would.

10 Likes

Wow! @sedgequeen, that was interesting. (I also saw your related post in Why is plant taxonomy so complicated? https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/why-is-plant-taxonomy-so-complicated/3493)

Now my head is going to explode.

2 Likes

I was going to ask about this, since going based on FNA’s decisions might cause conflict if these species are also present and observed in Europe where different taxonomic decisions might be made (lumping vs splitting).

1 Like

Well, I finally went and had a closer look at some of these taxa in the Plants of the World database, and was surprised by a couple of things, and not as surprised by a couple of other things. First, here are their respective pages:

R. armeniacus:
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:735202-1

R. bifrons:
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60449596-2

R. ulmifolius:
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:740982-1

R. fruticosus:
http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:736933-1

Now, my thoughts.

  1. Surprised to find that this database shows a drastically-different distribution of armeniacus and bifrons in the U.S. compared to what the study and U.S. maps posted at the beginning of this thread show. KEW has bifrons in California and all over the west, as well as north, and south, with armeniacus only spotted in a few more eastern states. I wonder where this distribution data comes from?

  2. Not surprised to learn that they have R. fruticosus occurring nowhere in the U.S.; the very definition of R. fruticosus [strict] says it only occurs in Europe. However, the KEW map shows it non-natively settled in some other points southward.

  3. Interested to note that there is zero overlap of native territory between R. armeniacus and R. bifrons. For two taxa that are considered by many to be the same species, I would have thought there would be some native overlap.

  4. Also interestingly, and in keeping with the DNA study @elsemikkelsen shared, the only taxa in the group that does share a native border with R. armeniacus is R. ulmifolius, which fully overlaps on the north of its territory with R. bifrons–so R. ulmifolius would appear of be the geographical link between “the twins.”

  5. The climate zones that each of the taxa have landed non-natively in are kind of interesting.

  6. They are all treated as individual species (and some have hefty lists of synonyms).

I’m not sure what to make of the completely opposite distribution maps for the U.S. seen in KEW and the U.S. government site. How could they be so different?

3 Likes

My first flora; Peck, a Manual of the Higher Plants of Oregon named Himalaya Berry as Rubus procerus. Then it was R. discolor, then R. bifrons, then R. armeniacus, then back to R. bifrons. The term to explain all of this is misapplied. This states that the previous name was wrong, so they are not synonymous.
Sedgequeen’s explanation of Himalayan Blackberry’s reproduction, I believe is correct. We are dealing with a clone. I sometimes liken it to an environmental malignancy. In fact in the Pacific Northwest there are several clones. My view is that the R. fruticosa complex is probably the best taxon for this invasive weed. A number of years ago a colleague suggest that it is best to use the local authority’s name. Right now that is R. bifrons, but what ever conveys Himalaya Blackberry works.
At a different level this Rubus complex is an exciting question, what is a species? This is one critter that will not stay in the box.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.