Pseudoleskeopsis
Autoicous. Asexual propagules absent. Mats or tufts on rock. Stems creeping, bipinnately or irregularly branched, with curved branches, with fascicles of rhizoids ventrally or below leaf insertions; paraphyllia absent; pseudoparaphyllia absent. Leaves broadly ovate, erect- to wide-spreading when moist, imbricate and appressed when dry, those of stems similar to those of branches, plicate, weakly decurrent; apex acute or obtuse; costa strong, single, extending to c. ¾ leaf length or subpercurrent; margin entire or serrulate near apex, plane or slightly recurved at base; laminal cells elliptic, rounded-hexagonal or rounded-rhomboid, becoming smaller at margins and base, smooth or prorate; alar cells scarcely differentiated, subquadrate or oblate. Capsule erect or slightly inclined, slightly curved and asymmetric, obloid or short-cylindric, without an annulus. Calyptra cucullate, smooth, glabrous. Operculum conic. Peristome double; endostome segments equal in height of exostome, with a basal membrane c. half exostome height; cilia absent.
One species in south-east Australia and New Zealand that may be best combined with a monotypic South American genus (see below).
The sole Victorian representative, Pseudoleskeopsis imbricata (Hook.f. & Wilson) Thér., is misplaced in this genus. Phylogenies based on chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences have revealed the Victorian species to be more closely related to other genera than to the type of Pseudoleskeopsis, P. zippelii (Dozy & Molk.) Broth. (Ignatov et al. 2007; Ignatova et al. 2010; Ignatov & Milyutina 2010). Ignatova et al. (2010) suggest that P. imbricata may be best placed in Leskeadelphus based on this genus being a close relative based on phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences from all genomic compartments (Cox et al. 2010; Câmara & Buck 2012), their shared Southern Hemisphere occurrence, and their morphological similarity that includes both having well-developed peristomes with cross striolate exostome teeth (Buck 1980). However, until a revision of this group is conducted and an alternative and more appropriate combination is made for the Victorian species, it is tentatively retained in Pseudoleskeopsis. The description provided pertains only to the Victorian species.
Buck, W.R. (1980). A re-interpretation of the Fabroniaceae: additions and corrections. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 47: 45–55.
Câmara, P.E.A.S.; Buck, W.R. (2012). A re-interpretation of the Fabroniaceae, a phylogenetic perspective. The Bryologist 115: 109–117.
Cox, C.J.; Goffinet, B.; Wickett, N.J.; Boles, S.B.; Shaw, A.J. (2010). Moss diversity: A molecular phylogenetic analysis of genera. Phytotaxa 9: 175–195.
Ignatova, E.A.; Ignatov, M.S.; Milyutina, I.A. (2010). A revision of the genus Lindbergia (Leskeaceae, Bryophyta) in Russia. Arctoa 19: 97–116.
Ignatov, M.S.; Gardiner, A.A.; Bobrova, V.K.; Milyutina, I.A.; Huttunen, S.; Troitsky, A.V. (2007). On the relationships of mosses of the order Hypnales, with special reference to taxa traditionally classified in the Leskeaceae, in Newton, A.E. & Tangney, R.S. (eds.), Pleurocarpous mosses: systematics and evolution, pp. 177–213. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Ignatov, M.S.; Milyutina, I.A. (2010). On the systematic position of the genus Sasaokaea (Bryophyta). Arctoa 19: 63–68.