Rubus spectabilis flowers, fruits, and seeds
This is salmonberry’s third appearance on Botany Photo of the Day. Tamara wrote a comprehensive entry on fruit-colour polymorphism in 2015. And, coincidentally, I posted my own scan of a double-flowered plant a decade ago: Rubus spectabilis Double-Flowered Group. Comparing the two scans, I think you’ll see the patience and skill with which Laara accomplishes her work.
In neither of the two previous entries, though, is there a discussion about the native habitats and distribution of Rubus spectabilis. Salmonberry is native to woodlands, woodland edges, bogs, shorelines, roadsides, and disturbed areas (source: Flora of North America) in the rainforests of western North America, occurring in both the coastal rainforests from California to Alaska and the inland rainforests from Idaho to mid-British Columbia. Curiously, the recently-published Flora of North America entry on Rubus spectabilis also suggests it is native to Japan. That was a bit of a headscratcher, so occasional BPotD writer and photographer Eric La Fountaine and I hit the books to see if that is indeed true.
The name makes an appearance in the Japanese flora in Franchet and Savier’s 1875-1879 work, Enumeratio Plantarum Japonicarum. Presumably, they based their understanding on the previous works cited (but I haven’t been able to track digitized versions of these online). The name is again mentioned in 1902, when Matsumara authored Notes on Japanese Rubi (PDF is a part 2); Matsumara documents Rubus spectabilis as occurring in several Japanese prefectures. The 1965 Flora of Japan by Jisaboru Ohwi also mentions the name, but the author asserts that it is a misapplied name for the similar-looking Rubus vernus. In other words, at least a few botanists had incorrectly thought that Rubus vernus was the same as the North American Rubus spectabilis, so were mistakenly using the latter name.
In modern works after 1965, it is difficult to find any mention of Japan (I can only find the Flora of North America entry). Short of learning about a paper where the Japanese Rubus vernus has been lumped into Rubus spectabilis (and there’s nothing I can find on Google Scholar), we concluded that a small error slipped by the Flora of North America editors–but given that it may be the first possible error I’ve noticed in FNA in over a decade of use, I’d say that’s a pretty good record.
What a lovely portrait of the plant. The flowers, leaves and fruit seem to glow.
Thanks for all the info about this yummy and pretty native.
🙂
I think it’s the shading on the leaves especially which gives it such a painterly feeling. Stunning. We have it growing here in our local woods in west Germany and I often ask myself, however did it come here?
Hi Wendy,
where in west Germany? I grew up in the Hannover/Hildesheim area but I don’t think I ever saw them 🙂
Susanne
A truly spectacular photo. Congratulations Laara! Including the leaves, flowers, fruit and seed in one photo is remarkable. Thanks Daniel for your research to identify it as native to North America and different from the Asian species.
last time I ate salmonberries was in Ucluelet a few years ago. how I long picking them in the lush forest by the ocean…
Susanne – I live in Kleve. The forest is something of a mangled mix-up. Five minutes from my home I can find west coast salmonberry and around the corner east coast Clethra alniflora. A strange flora…
What an amazing picture, Laara! I am deeply impressed. Congratulations. We grow this species and a plant of the Double Flower Group since many years here in Ettelbruck Botanic Garden Luxembourg, and never encountered problems with self seeding. Many visitors ask for it.
In the Franchet and Savier description you link to, the first line seems to translate (with Google translate’s help) as “In Japan it is a very dubious native”. It appears it is Siebold who sent it as a native of Japan, but none of the references are for Siebold, so I assume it was sent to Friedrich Miquel. It appears to be lacking from from the herbarium of Friedrich Miquel (what does Cl. abbreviate?) but was grown at Leiden botanical gardens. Pursh does not mention any Asian examples in his initial description of R, spectabilis. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/396777#page/400/mode/1up
I couldn’t find a Miquel book that starts with Prol. His Annals of Leiden Botanical Museum teased me with Japanese ferns and Rubiaceae on page 222 of different volumes. Then I found it was the “Prolusio Florae Iaponicae”, serialised within the Annals, presumably published separately at some point. It is actually page 34 of volume 3 of the Annals, published 1867. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/2545#page/43/mode/1up
And after all that, it just says the same thing: In herbariis deest sed in horto acad. colitur, a SIEBOLDO missus tanquam e Iaponia introductus.
The original statement by Karl Maximovich is found in “Mélanges Biologiques tirés du Bulletin Physico-Mathematique de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg” volume 8, 1872 page 386
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/109869#page/430/mode/1up
***************************************************************************************************************************
21. R. spectabilis, Pursh. Fl. Nth. Am. I. 348. t. 16. — Bot. reg. t. 1424. – Miq. Prol. 222.
Ex Miquel prostat cultus in horto academico Lugduno-Batavo, a Siebold e Japonia introductus, sed in herbariis deest, neque a me unquam visus. — Dubia adhuc igitur Japoniae civis. — Hucusque tantum ex America boreali-occidentali innotuit.
***************************************************************************************************************************
I don’t know Latin but I would loosely translate that as:
***************************************************************************************************************************
Miquel put in print that the plant was in the academic garden in Leiden, Siebold brought one in from Japan, but it is lacking in herbaria nor I have ever seen it. Still doubtfully native in Japan. Thus far only known from north-western America.
***************************************************************************************************************************
More information on this is found in the first description of Rubus vernus by Wilhelm Olbers Focke in 1878 in volume 5 of “Abhandlungen herausgegeben vom Naturwissenschaftlichen Verein zu Bremen”.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33553984#page/415/mode/1up
Again, I cleaned up the OCR to run it through Google translate:
***************************************************************************************************************************
3. R. vernus n. sp.
Patria: Japonia.
Affinis R. spectabili Pursh, a quo differt: pedunculis petiolisque tomentoso-hirtis, foliolis latioribus minus profunde incisis, terminali basi truncato vel subcordato, lateralibus manifeste petiolulatis, stipulis lineari-lanceolatis (non linearibus), calycis segmentis ovatis (non triangularibus).
Vidi specimen florens incompletum, quod vero speciem a R. spectabili diversam indicat.
Legit Rein in Japonia (locus desideratur).
R. spectabilis specimen vivum a Sieboldio e Japonia allatum in horto Lugduno-Batavo crescere Miquelius asserit (Ann. Mus. bot. Lugd. bat. III., p. 34). Sed in herbariis deest, neque a Maximowiczio visus, qui igitur adhuc dubium Japoniae civem vocat.
R. spectabilis species est admodum variabilis, sed nunquam vidi in illo petiolos pedunculosque tomentoso-hirtos et foliola tam lata, quam in R. verno nostro. In hoc foliolum terminale folio R. incisi simile est. Species ab Asiaticis omnibus hucusque descriptis longe diversa porro investiganda est.
W. 0. Focke.
***************************************************************************************************************************
So, ignoring most of the first paragraph of description, I would loosely translate this as:
***************************************************************************************************************************
3. R. vernus, new species.
Country: Japan
Affinity to R. spectabilis Pursh, the differences being… …
I saw the incomplete flowering specimen and would say the species is clearly different from R. spectabilis.
The thing reads it is in Japan (location needed).
Miquel claims a living example of R. spectabilis from Japan is growing in Leiden gardens (Ann. Mus. bot. Lugd. bat. III., p. 34 [ed. Damn it, if only I had read this first]). However it is lacking from herbaria and neither has Karl Maximovich seen it, which he says would be unlikely if it were native.
R. spectabilis is a very variable species but never seen with pedunculesque rough-tomentose petioles and leaves as broad as our R. vernus. This terminal leaflet is like the leaf of R. incisus. These are very different from Asiatic species described thus far and is to be further investigated.
***************************************************************************************************************************
I assume that is Rubus incisus Thunb. now called R. microphyllus L. f.
Gosh, that was fun.
Thanks for the work on that Pat. So, it seems like we definitely have the historical mistake sorted out. There is still the possibility of a modern taxonomist equating the two species, but if so, I would have expected that it would have been mentioned as a synonym in the Flora of North America account.