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 9. Rubus innominatus var. aralioides (Hance) Yü & Lu (1985: 48) ≡ Rubus aralioides Hance (1884: 42) Type ( holotype ):— CHINA . Ad rivulos, infra torrentem Sui-tin-mun: jugi Lo-fau-shan, Prov. Cantonensis, alt. 1000 ped., May 1883 , leg. rev. B.C. Henry 22211 (barcode BM000622281 !). [Image available at https://data.nhm. ac.uk/object/fce9afb8-7f00-4b28-835d-9ae217a9046d] . Note :—In the protologue, Hance (1884) cited one collection: “ B.C. Henry 22211 ” as the type. We traced the original material kept in BM, although the protologue did not mention the herbarium, this is the only material available, and therefore only it can be considered the holotype . Tropicos (2022) lists “ S. W . Teng 90429 ” and cited “HT:?; ST: A” as the type, with reference to the Flora of China ( Lu & Boufford 2003 ). This usage of “ S. W . Teng 90429 ” is a mistake that must be corrected for “ B.C. Henry 22211 ”.