This is of my own making, and sorry to create work for others...

I have posted 3 photos under Rubus armeniacus which I thought was the new name for R. discolor - the common weedy blackberry that plagues the PNW. I am now confused if these should be under R. ulmifolius? I noted in My List that I have both included and am trying to figure out which is correct.

At this point, I have the same photo posted to R. armeniacus and R. aumifolius so one needs to be deleted.

Deb, I'm fairly certain that R. ulmifolius is thornless, but I see thorns on yours. Your photos look exactly like R. armeniacus, so I'll leave them in that entry and delete the photo in the R. ulmifolius entry.

As for R. discolor, it may have been a misnomer. It's now classified only as an ambiguous synonym, and for two separate species -- R. ulmifolius and R. rigidus, neither of which resembles your photos.

And to further confuse me, my trusty field guide (Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast) has only one entry, R. discolor, for the two different brambles in my neck of the woods. I've always called the more common one Himalayan, which I believe is R. armeniacus but is alternately listed as R. procerus in my field guide (synonym?) and the less common is I guess R. laciniatus. I'll keep those two in My List and double check my photos. Such a bunch of confusion for what is clear to me two different plants. Thanks for deleting the erroneous photo.

There's a lot of confusion surrounding those names. Rubus procerus is another questionable name that now has only the status of an ambiguous synonym of either R. praecox or R. ulmifolius. Rubus laciniatus is still an accepted species name, however. I see that some of our Rubus entries in the database need to be updated. I'll do that tonight.