Hi Stefan, sorry to trouble you with this but a few of us Australians are a little confused about the true status of Bryum pachytheca/Gemmabryum pachythecum.
Much of the Australian documentation e.g. Flora of Australia, is based on information that predates Fife's 2015 review for the Flora of New Zealand and therefore still lists one or other of the names I mentioned above. No confusion here, however the VicFlora site prepared by Daniel Ohlsen of the National Herbarium of Victoria recently began including Bryophytes and in 2022 they listed both Bryum pachytheca and Bryum coronatum on the site with descriptions etc., the implication being that they still accept B. pachytheca as valid. See on the links below. https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/5a6d7981-2253-44a0-ba7b-86ee762b4652 https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/917a6c7a-682a-49c0-b041-9de78f64e974
This made me wonder if Fife's 2015 review applied to New Zealand material only, so I tracked down his documentation to see if he had examined specimens outside of New Zealand or not. The link below takes you to his document and unfortunately he does not provide a list of specimens examined, but his language seems to be restricted to New Zealand only.
https://www.nzflora.info/pdfs/FloraOfNewZealand-Mosses-19-Fife-2015-Bryaceae.pdf
I now suspect that this is a case of misidentification of the NZ material in the first instance as B. pachytheca which was subsequently corrected by Fife in 2015 to B. coronatum. If this is correct then B. pachytheca should remain a valid name on iNaturalist and record appropriate Australian material and not be listed as a synonym of B. coronatum.
There may of course be other papers that I am unaware of that deal with this more clearly and I would appreciate your thoughts on the situation. I guess it is always possible that Australian workers have not caught up with the changes which would explain the anomalies but with Daniel Ohlsen working with Niels Klazenga at our Herbarium, I would be surprised if they did not have it correctly sorted out.
Unintended disagreements occur when a parent (B) is
thinned by swapping a child (E) to another part of the
taxonomic tree, resulting in existing IDs of the parent being interpreted
as disagreements with existing IDs of the swapped child.
Identification
ID 2 of taxon E will be an unintended disagreement with ID 1 of taxon B after the taxon swap
If thinning a parent results in more than 10 unintended disagreements, you
should split the parent after swapping the child to replace existing IDs
of the parent (B) with IDs that don't disagree.
@tayloria @ninakerr01 @jenaoide
Hi Stefan, sorry to trouble you with this but a few of us Australians are a little confused about the true status of Bryum pachytheca/Gemmabryum pachythecum.
Much of the Australian documentation e.g. Flora of Australia, is based on information that predates Fife's 2015 review for the Flora of New Zealand and therefore still lists one or other of the names I mentioned above. No confusion here, however the VicFlora site prepared by Daniel Ohlsen of the National Herbarium of Victoria recently began including Bryophytes and in 2022 they listed both Bryum pachytheca and Bryum coronatum on the site with descriptions etc., the implication being that they still accept B. pachytheca as valid. See on the links below. https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/5a6d7981-2253-44a0-ba7b-86ee762b4652
https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/917a6c7a-682a-49c0-b041-9de78f64e974
This made me wonder if Fife's 2015 review applied to New Zealand material only, so I tracked down his documentation to see if he had examined specimens outside of New Zealand or not. The link below takes you to his document and unfortunately he does not provide a list of specimens examined, but his language seems to be restricted to New Zealand only.
https://www.nzflora.info/pdfs/FloraOfNewZealand-Mosses-19-Fife-2015-Bryaceae.pdf
I now suspect that this is a case of misidentification of the NZ material in the first instance as B. pachytheca which was subsequently corrected by Fife in 2015 to B. coronatum. If this is correct then B. pachytheca should remain a valid name on iNaturalist and record appropriate Australian material and not be listed as a synonym of B. coronatum.
There may of course be other papers that I am unaware of that deal with this more clearly and I would appreciate your thoughts on the situation. I guess it is always possible that Australian workers have not caught up with the changes which would explain the anomalies but with Daniel Ohlsen working with Niels Klazenga at our Herbarium, I would be surprised if they did not have it correctly sorted out.
Thanks and regards
John