On Distribution and Infraspecific Taxonomy:
Rubus spectabilis var. franciscanus - Syn. Rubus franciscanus. Also generally known as 'Salmonberry' or 'Salmon Berry'. This variety occurs in California and Oregon (rare); from the Santa Cruz Mts. to the western Bay Area, California. In California it occurs in the westernmost part along the northern coast; in Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma and Humboldt counties. Note that the University of Washington Herbarium considers this a synonym of the type.
Rubus spectabilis var. spectabilis -
California: Found in coastal northwest California. Using the floristic provinces of the Jepson's Manual, it occurs in the following regions: North Coast, Klamath Ranges, Outer North Coast Ranges, Central Coast and the San Francisco Bay Area. In counties this corresponds to: San Mateo, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Sonoma, Del Norte and Santa Cruz counties. Occurs below 300m in redwood forest and mixed evergreen forest, most often in wet or moist spots.
Oregon: Found in western Oregon, mostly west of the Cascades, not found or rare east of Hood Rv.; in moist woods, mostly below 30m elevation.
Washington: Both sides of the Cascades in the west of the State; common at low elevations west of the Cascades. Found in lowland moist woods and swamps to mid-elevations in the mountains. It can be seen in the wild in the following parks: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie N.F., Cougar Mt. R.W.P., Robe Canyon H.P., and Lake Twenty-Two R.N.A..
Idaho: Reported to occur here by Boreal Forest.org, the USDA Forest Service, and the PLANTS database (in Bonner and Clearwater counties). This is misleading, it has not been seen in this state since historic times. The USDA Forest Service lists it as a 'watch plant species' in northern Idaho.
Montana: Reported to occur here by Boreal Forest.org and the USDA Forest Service. I have found no primary or secondary evidence of that. It perhaps once occurred here in historic times or earlier.
British Columbia: Moist to wet forests, swamps and streambanks in primarily lowland and maritime zones, but sometimes in sub-montane zones; common in coastal BC, Graham Island and Vancouver Island (the far west). Incidental reports inland. Reports are rarer to the north. Moist to wet forests, swamps and streambanks in the lowland and montane zones.
Alaska: It occurs in much of the Panhandle, but hasn't been confirmed in all counties. Further north along the southern coasts it occurs in Yakutat, Valdez-Cordova, SE-Fairbanks, Matanuska-Susitna, Anchorage, Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Lake & Peninsula (but not around Bristol Bay) and the Aleutians East and West counties.
It has also naturalized in Ireland (introduced in 1827), in scattered areas of the U.K. and the Isle of Man, and has been deemed invasive in some areas of the Faeroe Islands. In much of Northern Ireland, Scotland and the Orkney Islands it is seen as a problematic invasive. In France it is reported as naturalized in three scattered localities: in Seine-Maritime on the coast of the English Channel, in Ariège in the Pyrenees, and in the Alpes de Haute-Provence.
There are reports of a further variety found in Honshu and possibly Hokkaido (Japan). These probably refer to the taxon R. vernus syn. R. spectabilis subsp. vernus; Tropicos sees this a subspecies R. spectabilis following Focke's 1911 re-treatment of his 1877 publication of R. vernus, however most other US and Canadian botanic institutions do not seem to agree. Who is correct? Not knowing anything else save this, I would personally be more inclined to consider Focke's 1911 interpretation as better evaluated than Focke's 1877 interpretation...
If Focke's 1911 interpretation can be considered correct, then the correct name of the nominate taxon would become R. spectabilis subsp. spectabilis var. spectabilis.
However, in the 1965 Flora of Japan by J. Ohwi it is treated a separate species.; and furthermore N. Naruhashi's work published in the 1980 articles 'Rubus vernus Focke and R. spectabilis Pursh.' in the Journal of Phytogeographical Taxonomy and 'Morphology of 34 Japanese Rubus Species' in Acta Horticulturae would seem to confirm this taxonomy.
There is also a R. spectabilis var. menziesii, but according to the unpublished draft version of the FNA9 it is unclear if this is not actually a variety of R. ursinus. One source lists R. spectabilis var. menziesii as a synonym of Rubus spectabilis var. franciscanus.
Two forms of R. spectabilis subsp. spectabilis have been described, distinguished primarily on the basis of fruit colour.
ChinaAnonymous1986(none)List-Based Rec., Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S.D.A. ???? Not in FOC!