Feedback request: Rubus plicatus (14410)

[oldnick]

This post was made automatically in response to a request for comment on the documentation form. There is more general info about such requests here.

Specimen #332056

Taxon:	Rosaceae: Rubus plicatus Weihe & Nees det. Beverley Alan Miles 1964
Other name:	Rubus plicatus var. pseudo-hemistemon det. William Moyle Rogers
Filed in taxon folder:	Rosaceae: Rubus plicatus Weihe & Nees
Collected by:	Mr Charles Edward Britton
Collection date:	25/8/1907
Locality:	Great Britain, VC17 Surrey, Netley Heath, TQ0849
ex herb:	Mr Charles Edward Britton
Institution:	South London Botanical Institute (SLBI)
Image:
fruits/flowers:	seeds/fruits

Documented by qgroom on 30^th December 2011.

Edit history

date	user	change
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Deleted determination (det): Rubus plicatus var pseudo-hemistemon
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Deleted determination (det): Rubus plicatus on 1964
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Added determination (det): Rubus plicatus var pseudo-hemistemon
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Added determination (det): Rubus plicatus on 1964
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Deleted determiner: Rev William Moyle Rogers
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Deleted determiner: Beverley Alan Miles
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Added determiner: Beverley Alan Miles
13/01/2012	tom humphrey	Added determiner: Rev William Moyle Rogers
15/02/2012	oldnick	Deleted locality: GB VC11 Netley
15/02/2012	oldnick	Added locality: GB VC17 Netley Heath TQ0849 (place)

N.B. reporting of the edit history is currently fairly unclear and misleading. Most edits made to specimens appear as a pair of 'add' and 'delete' entries, which may not be together in the list. There are also often 'minor' edits, which are made automatically (rather than due to user activity), for example to merge synonym names.

Log-in to edit this sheet.

User comments about this sheet

oldnick wrote

I suspect many other specimens from this site in Surrey have also been entered as Hampshire

[oldnick]

Sorry! I had a l ook through, and all the others seem to be correct!