Andrewsianthus R.M.Schust.
Eremonotus confusus R.M.Schust., J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 26: 279. 1963 [based on Sphenolobus perigonialis sensu Steph., Sp. Hepat. 2: 163. 1902, non Jungermannia perigonialis Hook.f. & Taylor].
Andrewsianthus confusus (R.M.Schust.) R.M.Schust., Rev. Bryol. Lichénol. 34: 281. 1966.
Type: New Zealand, Stewart Is., 0.8–1.5 mi. above Port Pegasus, Pegasus Creek, Schuster 49581.
Schuster (1963b) validly published the name Eremonotus confusus R.M.Schust. by referring to Stephani’s (1902) description of Sphenolobus perigonialis, and in so doing in a sense excluded the type of S. perigonialis. Schuster (1963b, p. 279) stated, “The plant described by Hodgson (1946) and by Stephani (Sp. Hepat. 2: 163. 1902), as ‘ Sphenolobus perigonialis ’ is not identical [to Anastrophyllum minutum]; I have found this taxon on Stewart Is. (Pegasus Cr., RMS 49581). It appears undescribed; for it I propose the name Eremonotus (Acantholobus) confusus, with RMS 49581 as type, and cite the Stephani diagnosis to validate it.” Schuster (1968b, p. 489) added “ A. confusus (R.M.Schust.) R.M.Schust. was, initially, legitimately validated by the citing of the unusually adequate Latin diagnosis in Stephani (1898–1924), for the simple reason that Stephani’s diagnosis was based solely on the plant illustrated and described by Berggren (1898) as ‘ Sphenolobus perigonialis,’ nec J. perigonialis Hook.f. & Taylor =Eremonotus confusus R.M.Schust. ” Schuster (1968b) provided a synonymy and diagnosis (in both Latin and English) of A. confusus, and described the leaf sinus as descending to ca. 0.15–0.25, the leaf lobes as acute, and stated (p. 491) “the cuticle (RMS 67-460) is coarsely, confluently papillose to papillose-striolate.” The lobe shape and leaf surface characters fit A. cuspidatus. The sinus depth, of ca. 0.15–0.25, is slightly shallower than we would allow for the species; we have studied a number of specimens ranging from Stewart Island to North Island, and we have found a sinus depth ranging from 0.2 to 0.4(0.55). Of interest is the collection number cited by Schuster (1968b) for the cuticle character (RMS 67-460), since this matches the collection number for a portion of fig. 335 (p. 330) of A. cuspidatus in Schuster (2002a).
The name Andrewsianthus confusus was used by Schuster (1966c, 1968b), but subsequently seems to have been abandoned in the literature. The name is not mentioned in Schuster’s (2002a) overview of Andrewsianthus (pp. 320–339). If A. confusus is found to be conspecific with A. cuspidatus, the former would be the correct name for this plant. The two species are probably identical, but without examination of the types of A. confusus or A. cuspidatus, we do not wish to make a formal statement of synonymy. Hodgson (1967) included Eremonotus confusus in the synonymy of Lophozia perigonialis.
