Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae) Author Idrees, Muhammad 0000-0001-7031-7247 College of Life Science, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang 641000, Sichuan, China & idreesbiotech @ yahoo. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 7031 - 7247 idreesbiotech@yahoo.com Author Zhang, Zhiyong 0000-0003-4533-1789 College of Life Science, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang 641000, Sichuan, China & zhangzyong 219 @ 126. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0003 - 4533 - 1789 text Phytotaxa 2022 2022-08-19 559 1 13 24 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2 journal article 124888 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2 007d42e0-65f9-4fa1-84f7-e3013a33d03d 1179-3163 7009287 2. Rubus alnifoliolatus Léveillé & Vaniot (1906: 549) Type ( lectotype designated here ):— TAIWAN . Formose : lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 June 1903 , U.J. Fauire 132 (barcode E00010563!, isolectotypes: A00040525!, G00437170!, P00755172!, P00755173!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010563] . Note :—In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1906) cited one collection: “Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 juin 1903 ; U.J. Fauire 132 ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype , even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al . 2018 ). We locate five duplicates, deposited in A (barcode 00040525), E (barcode 00010563), G (barcode 00437170), and P (barcode 00755172- 00755173). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 ( Turland et al. 2018 ), none of them can be treated as holotype , but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes ; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979) , all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in E (barcode 00010563) as the lectotype . The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.