Flora of North America species comparison

Rubus ulmifolius can be distinguished, especially from the closely related R. bifrons and R. vestitus, by its strongly pruinose stems, finely serrate leaflets, and lack of glands throughout. Unlike R. ulmifolius, strongly pruinose native Rubus species lack relatively large and showy pink petals. Some new stems developing from tip-rooting, and early leaves on such stems (especially in shade), are not whitened abaxially and are tomentose. Such unusual stems develop typical leaves and surfaces in parts formed later.

There has been nomenclatural confusion over unarmed plants of Rubus ulmifolius (see E. Monasterio-Huelin and H. E. Weber 1996). Rubus inermis Willdenow is an illegitimate later homonym of R. inermis Pourret, and the type specimens for both names are of poor-quality. If an unarmed variety of R. ulmifolius is to be recognized, such as occurs in California, the name var. anoplothyrsus Sudre should be used instead of var. inermis (Willdenow) Focke.

Rubus ulmifolius is attractive and is potentially weedy but relatively uncommon, found primarily in coastal California from the San Francisco Bay region southward. It probably no longer persists in New Jersey, last collected there in 1897, and it is rare in Nevada and Oregon. Rubus ulmifolius likely hybridizes with R. bifrons where they co-occur; it is one of relatively few diploid and sexually reproducing species of European blackberries.

(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)

Rubus bifrons lacks the strongly pruinose stems of the related R. ulmifolius and has usually much larger leaves. The species also often has much broader inflorescences than R. ulmifolius or the related R. vestitus. It is less densely glandular and has longer and more open inflorescences than R. pascuus, and unlike the latter it has spreading, not erect, primocane leaves. Rubus bifrons also lacks the stipitate-glandular hairs and nearly round primocane terminal leaflets of R. vestitus; seedlings of R. bifrons can be densely stipitate-glandular.

L. H. Bailey (1941–1945), M. L. Fernald (1950), Y. Heslop-Harrison (1968), and H. A. Gleason and A. Cronquist (1991) distinguished between Rubus bifrons and another species (referred to as either R. discolor or R. procerus P. J. Müller ex Boulay, both often considered synonyms of R. armeniacus), based on stem shape and indument, prickle shape and angle, leaf shape and margins, inflorescence shape, and petal color. Plants in North America identified as either R. bifrons or the other species can vary broadly in any of these characters, even within individual stems, making it extremely difficult or impossible to distinguish between these species in the flora area. Recent research addressing the genetics or species distinctiveness in this complex in Europe (J. Kollmann et al. 2000) and Australia (K. J. Evans et al. 2007) did not sample plants from North America, and recent work within the flora area (L. V. Clark et al. 2013) addressed this complex only in California, Oregon, and Washington. Until a much-needed genetic study is performed that includes a broad selection of plants of ser. Discolores from throughout North America, Europe, and elsewhere, the precise identities of all of our material in this complex will be elusive. With this degree of uncertainty, a conservative approach is taken here, which is consistent with the treatment herein of the native blackberries. The results of more comprehensive DNA research may show that a different name than R. bifrons is to be used in the flora area. The name R. discolor often has been misattributed as a synonym of R. armeniacus; it is a synonym of R. ulmifolius (H. E. Weber 1985).

In the flora area, Rubus bifrons is most abundant from northern California northward to British Columbia, where it can grow in great density over large areas, often to the exclusion of all other vegetation (for example, K. Williams et al. 2006). There are reports of R. bifrons (as R. armeniacus or R. procerus) hybridizing with R. ursinus (T. S. Mallah 1954; L. V. Clark and M. Jasieniuk 2012; B. Sutherland and L. Alice, unpubl.) and R. laciniatus (R. K. Bammi and H. P. Olmo 1966).

Rubus thyrsoideus Wimmer is an illegitimate name that applies here.

(Discussion copyrighted by Flora of North America; reprinted with permission.)