Genus: Rubus

By Science Staff

Not peer reviewed

Last Modified 03/15/2013

Back to Rosaceae


Rubus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 492. 1753. Gen. Pl., ed. 5, 218. 1754. LECTOTYPE: Rubus idaeus L., Rydberg (1905), Rubus fruticosus L., Britton & Brown (1913), or Rubus caesius L., Hitchcock & Green (1929).

Chamaemorus Hill, Brit. Herb. (Hill) 331. 1756. TYPE: Not designated.

Rubacer Rydb., Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 30: 274. 1903. Bossekia Neck. ex Greene, Leafl. Bot. Observ. Crit. 1: 210. 1906. TYPE: Rubacer odoratum (L.) Rydb. (=Rubus odoratus L.).

Melanobatus Greene, Leafl. Bot. Observ. Crit. 1: 243. 1906. TYPE: Not designated.

Rubus sect. Batidea Dumort., Fl. Belg. 94. 1827. Batidaea Greene, Leafl. Bot. Observ. 1:238. 1906. TYPE: Rubus idaeus L.

Key to the species of Rubus

1. Stems erect, 1-2 m tall, unarmed; leaves simple, lobed; fruit depressed...Rubus odoratus
1. Stems prostrate or erect, 0.1-2.5 m tall, armed with prickles and/or bristles; leaves compound; fruit subglobose to elongate...2

2. First-year stem (primocane) leaves ternate or digitately or pinnately quinate, whitish beneath; petals inconspicuous, generally less than 7 mm long, spatulate or obovate, green-white, white, or rose-pink; ripe fruit yellow, amber, red, purple, or purple-black, readily separated from the receptacle...3
2. Primocane leaves ternate or digitately quinate or 7-foliate, green to gray-green beneath; petals showy, generally at least 7 mm long, obovate to nearly orbicular, white to pale pink; ripe fruit dark purple to black, not separating from the receptacle...5

3. Inflorescences many-flowered and paniculiform; calyces and pedicels densely covered with reddish gland-tipped hairs...Rubus phoenicolasius
3. Inflorescences few-flowered, corymbiform, umbelliform, or short-racemose; calyces gray-tomentose and minutely glandular-pubescent...4

4. Pedicels with stout curved prickles, not glandular; canes arching to decumbent, often rooting at the tip; fruit usually black...Rubus occidentalis
4. Pedicels with straight weak bristles, also finely glandular; canes arching, not rooting at the tip; fruit usually red...Rubus idaeus
Note: The hybrid between R. occidentalis and R. idaeus is known as Rubus ×neglecta.

5. Leaflets pinnately lobed or incised nearly to the midrib; calyx lobes with firm prickles...Rubus laciniatus
5. Leaflets merely toothed or at most shallowly lobed; calyx lobes unarmed (may be glandular-setose)...6

6. Canes arching to prostrate, rooting at the tips...7
6. Canes erect to arching, not rooting at the tips...10

7. Inflorescences racemiform, pedicels subtended by small bracts...Rubus arundelanus
7. Inflorescences leafy, the pedicels subtended by leaves...8

8. Armature mostly slender prickles or bristles, these little if at all expanded at the base...Rubus hispidus
8. Armature only stout, stiff, commonly hooked prickles with expanded bases...9

9. Terminal leaflet of trifoliate flowering-stem (floricane) leaves somewhat ovate, with a broadly rounded to subcordate base and sharply acute to long-acuminate tip...Rubus flagellaris
9. Terminal leaflet of trifoliate floricane leaves oblong to oblanceolate or obovate, with narrow to broadly cuneate base and obtuse to very abruptly and inconspicuously acuminate tip...Rubus enslenii

10. Armature mostly slender prickles or bristles, these little if at all expanded at the base...Rubus setosus
10. Armature only stout, stiff, commonly hooked prickles with expanded bases...11

11. Glandular hairs abundant on the pedicels and elsewhere...Rubus allegheniensis
11. Glandular hairs absent or with a few on the pedicels...12

12. Leaflets oblanceolate to obovate, broadest well above the middle, densely and closely white to gray-tomentose beneath...Rubus cuneifolius
12. Leaflets lanceolate to oblong or ovate, not gray or white beneath...Rubus pensilvanicus

List of Rubus Species

References to Rubus

  • Abrahamson, W. G. 1975. Reproductive strategies in dewberries. Ecology 56(3): 721-6.
  • Abrahamson, W. G. 1975. Reproduction in Rubus hispidus L. in different habitats. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 93: 471-8.
  • Aldous, S. E. 1941. Food habits of chipmunks. J. Mammal. 22: 18-24.
  • Alexander, E. J. 1945. Rubus linkianus. Addisonia 22: 35-6.
  • Alice, L. A. 2001. Hybridization and gene flow between distantly related species of Rubus (Rosaceae): evidence from nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transribed spacer region sequences. Syst. Bot. 26: 769-778.
  • Alice, L. A.; Campbell, C. S. 1999. Phylogeny of Rubus (Rosaceae) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer region sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 81-97.
  • Anonymous 1889. Proceedings of the Club. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 16: 123-4.
  • Anonymous 1901. Field days of the Torrey Botanical Club. Torreya 1: 132.
  • Antonius, K.; Nybom, H. 1994. DNA fingerprinting reveals significant amounts of genetic variation in a wild raspberry Rubus idaeus population. Molec. Ecol. 3: 177-80.
  • Bailey, L. H. 1947. Species studies in Rubus. Gentes Herb. 7: 193-349.
  • Bailey, L. H. 1949. Rubus studies - review and additions. Gentes Herb. 7: 479-526.
  • Bailey, L. H. 1941. Species Batorum. The genus Rubus in North America (north of Mexico). Gentes Herb. 5: 1-932.
  • Bicknell, E. P. 1910. Have we enough New England blackberries? Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 37: 393-403.
  • Blanchard, W. H. 1911. Rubus of eastern North America. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 38: 425-39.
  • Blanchard, W. H. 1905. The yellow-fruited variety of the black raspberry. Rhodora 7: 143-6.
  • Blanchard, W. H. 1907. Connecticut Rubi. Rhodora 9: 4-10.
  • Blanchard, W. H. 1908. On the identity of Rubus canadensis. Rhodora 10: 117-21.
  • Blanchard, W. H. 1909. Some points of nomenclature in Trientalis and Rubus. Rhodora 11: 236-7.
  • Boman, J. S.; Casper, B. B. 1995. Differential postdispersal seed predation in disturbed and intact temperate forest. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 134: 107-116.
  • Brainerd, E. 1900. The blackberries of New England. Rhodora 2: 23-9.
  • Britton, D. M.; Hull, J. W. 1956. Mitotic instability in Rubus. J. Heredity 47: 205-10.
  • Britton, D. M.; Hull, J. W. 1957. Chromosome numbers of Rubus. Fruit Var. Hort. Digest 11: 58-60.
  • Card, F. W. 1911. Bush-fruits: A horticultural monograph of raspberries, blackberries, dewberries, currants, gooseberries, and other shrub-like fruits. ed. New York. , 537 pages. (The first volume in the Rural Science Series, ed. by L.H. Bailey.)
  • Chapman, R. R.; Crow, G. E. 1981. Raunkiaer's Life Form classification in relation to fire. Bartonia 48: 19-33.
  • Chute, H. M. 1930. The morphology and anatomy of the achene. Amer. J. Bot. 17: 703-23.
  • Clausen, J.; Keck, D. D.; Hiesey, W. M. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Publ. Carnegie Inst. Wash. 564: 1-174. (Amphiploids in the genus Rubus, 104-116.)
  • Coladoanto, M. 1994. Rubus canadensis. ()
  • Coladoanto, M. 1993. Rubus chamaemorus. ()
  • Cook, D. B.; Hamilton, W. J. 1944. The ecological relationships of red fox food in eastern New York. Ecology 25(1): 91-104.
  • CotÚ, J. F.; Thibault, J. R. 1988. Allelopathic potential of raspberry (Rubus idaes) foliar leachates on growth of ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with black spruce (Picea mariana). Amer. J. Bot. 75(7): 966-70.
  • Craig, D. L. 1960. Studies on the cytology and the breeding behavior of Rubus canadensis L. Canad. J. Genet. Cytol. 2: 96-102.
  • Crane, M. B. 1940. Reproductive versatility in Rubus. I. Morphology and inheritance. J. Genet. 40: 109-18.
  • Crane, M. B.; Darlington, C. D. 1927. The origin of new forms in Rubus, I. Genetica 9: 241-78.
  • Crane, M. B.; Thomas, P. T. 1949. Reproductive versatility in Rubus. III. Raspberry-blackberry hybrids. Heredity 3: 99-107.
  • Darrow, G. M. 1920. Are our raspberries derived from American or European species? J. Heredity 11: 178-84.
  • Davis, H. A. 1990. Studies in Rubus. Castanea 55: 22-30.
  • Davis, H. A.; Fuller, A. M.; Davis, T. 1967. Contributions toward the revision of the Eubati of eastern North America. Castanea 32: 20-37.
  • Davis, H. A.; Fuller, A. M.; Davis, T. 1968. Contributions toward the revision of the Eubati of eastern North America. II, Setosi. Castanea 33: 50-76.
  • Davis, H. A.; Fuller, A. M.; Davis, T. 1968. Contributions toward the revision of the Eubati of eastern North America. III, Flagellares. Castanea 33: 206-41.
  • Davis, H. A.; Fuller, A. M.; Davis, T. 1969. Contributions toward the revision of the Eubati of eastern North America. IV. Verotriviales, Canadenses, Alleghanienses. Castanea 34: 157-79.
  • Davis, H. A.; Fuller, A. M.; Davis, T. 1969. Contributions toward the revision of the Eubati of eastern North America. V, Arguti. Castanea 34: 235-66.
  • Davis, H. A.; Fuller, A. M.; Davis, T. 1970. Contributions toward the revision of the Eubati of eastern North America. VI, Cuneifolii. Castanea 35: 176-94.
  • Davis, W. H. 1958. Apomixis, hybridization, and speciation in Rubus. Castanea 23: 52-5.
  • Dibello, F. J.; Arthur, S. M.; Krohn, W. B. 1990. Food habits of sympatric coyotes, red foxes, and bobcats in Maine. Canad. Field-Naturalist 104: 403-8.
  • Dowrick, G. J. 1961. Biology of reproduction in Rubus. Nature 191: 680-2.
  • Dowrick, G. J. 1966. Breeding systems in tetraploid Rubus species. Genet. Res. 7: 245-53.
  • Einset, J. 1947. Chromosome studies in Rubus. Gentes Herb. 7: 181-92.
  • Einset, J. 1951. Apomixis in American polyploid blackberries. Amer. J. Bot. 38: 768-72.
  • Eriksson, T. 2003. The phylogeny of Rosoideae (Rosaceae) based on sequences of the internal transcribed spacers (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA and the TRNL/F region of chloroplast DNA. Int. J. Plant Sci. 164: 197-211.
  • Fassett, N. C. 1941. Mass collections: Rubus odoratus and R. parviflorus. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 28: 299-374.
  • Fell, K. R.; Rowson, J. M. 1956. Anatomical studies in the genus Rubus. I. The anatomy of the leaf of Rubus idaeus L. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 8: 334-345.
  • Fernald, M. L. 1919. Rubus idaeus and some of its variations in North America. Rhodora 21(245): 89-98.
  • Fernald, M. L. 1900. Rubus idaeus and its variety anomalus in America. Rhodora 2: 195-200.
  • Fernald, M. L. 1948. A small gathering of blackberries. Rhodora 50(592): 73-80.
  • Fernald, M. L. 1949. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University. No. CLXIX. Part II. Studies of eastern American plants. 2. Blackberries, old and new. Rhodora 51(603): 43-51.
  • Focke, W. O. 1910. Species Ruborum. Monographie generis Rubi prodromus. Biblioth. Bot. 72:1-223; 83:1-274
  • Focke, W. O. 1881. Uber die naturliche Gliederung und die geographische Verbreitung der Gattung Rubus. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1: 87-103. (In German)
  • Free, J. B. 1970. Insect pollination of crops. Academic Press, New York. , 544 pages.
  • Haskell, G. 1954. The genetic detection of natural crossing in blackberry. Genetica 27: 162-72.
  • Haskell, G. 1966. The history, taxonomy and breeding system of apomictic British Rubi. In: Reproductive biology and taxonomy of vascular plants. Oxford. ,
  • Hebda, R. J.; Chinnappa, C. C. 1994. Studies on pollen morphology of Rosaceae. Acta Botanica Gallica 141: 183-193.
  • Heslop-Harrison, Y. 1959. Natural and induced rooting of the stem apex in Rubus. Ann. Bot. 23: 307-18.
  • Hodgdon, A. R.; Steele, F. 1962. Glandularity in Rubus allegheniensis Porter. Rhodora 64: 161-8.
  • Hogdon, A. R.; Steele, F. 1966. Rubus subgenus Eubatus in New England, a conspectus. Rhodora 68: 474-513.
  • Horsley, S. B. 1983. Interference by weeds and deer with Allegheny hardwood reproduction. Canad. J. Forest Res. 13: 61-69
  • Hudson, J. P. 1959. Effects of environment on Rubus idaeus L. I. Morphology and development of the red raspberry plant. J. Hort. Sci. 34: 163-9.
  • Hyatt, L. A. 1999. Differences between seed bank composition and field recruitment in a temperate zone deciduous forest. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 142: 31-38.
  • Innis, A. F. 2011. Genetic diversity in the invasive Rubus phoenicolasius as compared to the native rubus argutus using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Biological Invasions 13: 1735-1738.
  • Jackson, G. 1926. The morphology and anatomy of the flowers of Rosa and certain closely related genera. M.S. Thesis Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY56 figs. + 33 p.
  • Jarvis, C. E. 1992. Seventy-two proposals for the conservation of types of selected Linnaean generic names, the report of Subcommittee 3C on the lectotypification of Linnaean generic names. Taxon 41: 552-83.
  • Jennings, D. L. 1988. Raspberries and blackberries. Their breeding, diseases and growth. Academic Press, London, New York.
  • Jennings, D. L.; Topham, P. B. 1971. Some consequences of raspberry pollen dilution for its germination and for fruit development. New Phyt. 70: 371-80.
  • Jensen, K. I. N.; Hall, I. V. 1979. The biology of Canadian weeds: 36. Rubus hispidus L. Canad. J. Pl. Sci. 59(3): 769-76.
  • Keep, E. 1964. Sepaloidy in the red raspberry, Rubus idaeus L. Canad. J. Genet. Cytol. 6: 52-60.
  • Keep, E. 1969. Accessory buds in the genus Rubus with particular reference to R. idaeus L. Ann. Bot. 33: 191-204.
  • Keep, E. 1972. Variability in the wild raspberry. New Phyt. 71(5): 915-24.
  • Kellogg, A. A. 2011. Morphological studies of developing Rubus prickles suggest that they are modified glandular trichomes. Botany 89: 217-226.
  • Kerr, E. A. 1954. Seed development in blackberries. Canad. J. Bot. 32: 654-72.
  • Kichina, V. V.; Ogol'tsova, T. P. 1975. Spontaneous polyploids in the red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). Soviet Genet. 9(6): 796-7. (Ref. in Bibliogr. Agric. 39(10):212222. 1975; transl. 1975.)
  • Kraft, T.; Nybom, H. 1995. DNA fingerprinting and biometry can solve some taxonomic problems in apomictic blackberries (Rubus subgen. Rubus). Watsonia 20: 329-43.
  • Kral, R. 1981. Some distributional reports of weedy or naturalized foreign species of vascular plants for the southern states, particularly Alabama and middle Tennessee. Castanea 46: 334-9.
  • Larsson, E. G. K. 1969. Experimental taxonomy as a base for breeding in northern Rubi. Hereditas 63: 283-351.
  • Lawrey, J. D. 1977. Trace metal accumulation by plant species from a coal strip-mining area in Ohio. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 104: 368-375.
  • Longley, A. E. 1924. Cytological studies in the genus Rubus. Amer. J. Bot. 11: 249-82.
  • Longley, A. E.; Darrow, G. M. 1924. Cytological studies of diploid and polyploid forms in raspberries. J. Agric. Res. 27: 737-48.
  • Mandrik, V. Y.; Petrus, Y. P. 1971. Differentiation of seedbud, development of female gametophyte and embryogenesis in Rubus idaeus L. and Rubus caesius L. Ukrayins'k Bot. Zhurn. 28: 469-76. (In Ukranian; English summary)
  • Martine, C. T. 2008. Fifteen woody species with potential for invasiveness in New England. Rhodora 110: 345-353.
  • Mitchell, A. M. 1899. The white blackberry. Rhodora 1: 205-6.
  • Moore, G. 2007. Neotypification of Rubus cuneifolius Pursh (Rosaceae). Harvard Papers in Botany 11: 141-143.
  • Morden-Moore, A. L.; Willson, M. F. 1982. On the ecological significance of fruit color in Prunus serotina and Rubus occidentalis: field experiments. Canad. J. Bot. 60: 1554-60.
  • Morris, E. L. 1912. Shorter notes- an apparently new record for Rubus chamaemorus Linnaeus. Torreya 12: 88.
  • Myers, J. A. 2004. Seed dispersal by white-tailed deer: implications for long-distance dispersal, invasion, and migration of plants in eastern North America. Oecologia 139: 35-44.
  • Norby, R. J.; Kozlowski, T. T. 1980. Allelopathic potential of ground cover species on Pinus resinosa seedlings. Pl. & Soil 57: 363-74.
  • Nybom, H. 1988. Apomixis versus sexuality in blackberries (Rubus subgen. Rubus, Rosaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 160(3-4): 207-18.
  • Nybom, H. 1985. Active self-pollination in blackberries (Rubus subgen. Rubus, Rosaceae). Nordic J. Bot. 5(6): 521-5.
  • Nybom, H.; Rogstad, S. H.; Schaal, B. A. 1990. Genetic variation detected by use of the M13 "DNA fingerprint" probe in Malus, Prunus, and Rubus (Rosaceae). Theor. Appl. Genet. 79: 153-6.
  • Paratley, R. D. 1986. Vegetation-environment relations in a conifer swamp in central New York. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 113: 357-371.
  • Petrakhilev, I. M. 1958. Intergeneric hybrids of raspberries. Priroda (Sabaneev) 1958: 109-11. (In Russian)
  • Pisula, N. L.; Meiners, S. J. 2010. Relative allelopathic potential of invasive plant species in a young disturbed woodland. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 137: 81-87.
  • Poston, M. E.; Middendorf, G. A. 1988. Maturation characteristics of Rubus pennsylvanicus fruit: are black and red the same? Oecologia 77: 69-73.
  • Pratt, C.; Einset, J. 1955. Development of the embryo sac in some American blackberries. Amer. J. Bot. 42: 637-45.
  • Pratt, C.; Einset, J.; Clausen, Robert T. 1958. Embryology, breeding behavior and morphological characteristics of apomictic, triploid Rubus idaeus L. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 85: 242-254.
  • Quimby, D. C. 1951. The life history and ecology of the jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius. Ecol. Monogr. 21: 61-95.
  • Reich, P. B.; Abrams, M. D.; et al. 1990. Fire affects ecophysiology and community dynamics of central Wisconsin oak forest regeneration. Ecology 71: 2179-90.
  • Robertson, C. 1894. Flowers and insects: Rosaceae and Compositae. Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci. 6: 435-80.
  • Robinson, B. L. 1908. Notes on some plants of the northeastern America. Rhodora 10: 46-55.
  • Rose, R. C. 1919. After-ripening and germination of seeds of Tilia, Sambucus, and Rubus. Bot. Gaz. 67: 281-308.
  • Rydberg, P. A. 1915. Notes on Rosaceae- IX. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 42: 117-60.
  • Rydberg, P. A. 1915. Notes on Rosaceae- X. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 42: 463-79.
  • Scott, D. P.; Yahner, R. H. 1989. Winter habitat and browse use by snowshoe hares, Lepus americanus, in a marginal habitat in Pennsylvania. Canad. Field-Naturalist 103: 560-3.
  • Shahid, A. 2009. Selection of seeds of common native and non-native plants by granivorous rodents in the northeastern United States. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 162: 207-212.
  • Shiflett, S. A.; Young, D. R. 2010. Avian seed dispersal on Virginia barrier islands: potential influence on vegetation community structure and patch dynamics. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 164: 91-106.
  • Smith, A. J. 1975. Invasion and ecesis of bird-disseminated woody plants in a temperate forest sere. Ecology 56(1): 19-34.
  • Staniforth, R. J.; Sidhu, S. S. 1984. Effects of atmospheric fluorides on foliage, flower, fruit, and seed production in wild raspberry and blueberry. Canad. J. Bot. 62: 2827-34.
  • Steele, F. L.; Hodgdon, A. R. 1970. Hybrids in Rubus subgenus Eubatus in New England. Rhodora 72: 240-50.
  • Steele, F.; Hodgdon, A. R. 1963. Hybridization of Rubus hispidus and R. setosus. Rhodora 65: 262-70.
  • Stoll, R. J. 1980. Foods of ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus in Ohio USA. Ohio Fish Wildlife Rep. 1980: 1-18.
  • Stone, W. E. 1883. Fasciation in Rubus. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 10: 48.
  • Taylor, K. 1989. The absense of mycorrhiza in Rubus chamaemorus. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 26: 421-5.
  • Thomas, P. T. 1940. Reproductive versatility in Rubus. II. The chromosomes and development. J. Genet. 40: 119-28.
  • Thompson, M. M. 1997. Survey of chromosome numbers in Rubus (Rosaceae: Rosoideae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 84: 128-64.
  • Tirmenstein, D. A. 1989. Rubus idaeus. ()
  • Tirmenstein, D. A. 1989. Rubus laciniatus. ()
  • Topham, P. B. 1967. Fertility in crosses involving diploid and autotetraploid raspberries. I. The embryo & II. Fruit and seed development. Ann. Bot. 31: 673-97.
  • Traux, B.; Gagnon, D.; Lambert, F.; Chevrier, N. 1994. Nitrate assimilation of raspberry and pin cherry in a recent clearcut. Canad. J. Bot. 72(9): 1343-8.
  • Tweedy, F. 1880. Salix and Rubus. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 7: 56.
  • Waugh, R.; van de Ven, W. T. G.; Phillips, M. S.; Powell, W. 1990. Chloroplast DNA diversity in the genus Rubus (Rosaceae) revealed by Southern hybridization. Pl. Syst. Evol. 172: 65-75.
  • Weber, H. E. 1985. On the nomenclature and distribution of taxa in the genus Rubus L. (Rosaceae) described by K.E.A. Weihe. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 106: 289-335. (In German; English summary)
  • Whitney, G. G. 1982. The productivity and carbohydrate economy of a developing stand of Rubus idaeus. Canad. J. Bot. 60: 2697-703.
  • Whitney, G. G. 1984. The reproductive biology of raspberries and plant-pollinator community structure. Amer. J. Bot. 71: 887-894. (Also Prunus, Uvularia)
  • Whitney, G. G. 1978. A demographic analysis of Rubus idaeus L. and Rubus pubescens Raf.: The reproductive traits and population dynamics of two temporally isolated members of the genus Rubus. Ph.D. Thesis Yale University, New Haven, CT,
  • Whitney, G. G. 1986. A demographic analysis of Rubus idaeus and Rubus pubescens. Canad. J. Bot. 64: 2916-21.
  • Widrlechner, Mark P. 1998. The Genus Rubus L. in Iowa. Castanea 63(4): 415-465.
  • Williams, I. H. 1959. Effects of environment on Rubus idaeus L. II. Field observations on the variety Malling Promise. J. Hort. Sci. 34: 170-5.
  • Wolfe, L. P.; Hodgdon, A. R. 1951. A new form of Rubus allegheniensis. Rhodora 53(625): 30-2.
  • Yarnell, S. H. 1936. Chromosome behavior in blackberry-raspberry hybrids. J. Agric. Res. 52: 385-95.
  • Yerger, R. W. 1955. Life history notes on the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus lysteri (Richardson) in central New York. Amer. Midl. Naturalist 53: 312-23.
  • Zika, P. F. 2003. Notes on the provenance of some eastern wetland species disjunct in western North America. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 130: 43-46.