Barbula

Phylogenetic analyses of chloroplast and nuclear DNA sequences have revealed that Barbula in the widely accepted circumscription presented by Zander (1993) prior to the molecular phylogenetic era is composed of multiple lineages, with one lineage containing the type resolved in subfamily Pottoideae, and the remaining lineages belonging to subfamily Trichostomoideae (Werner et al. 2004; Kučera et al. 2013). Kučera et al. (2013) divided the sampled Barbula species into four genera. Two Victorian species, B. unguiculata Hedw. and B. convoluta Hedw. were among the sampled species. Barbula unguiculata is the type of Barbula so was retained in Barbula along with another possibly closely related species, while B. convoluta grouped together with another two species, which together were transferred to the resurrected genus Streblotrichum, which is followed here. Kučera et al. (2013) discussed the possibility of the unsampled Victorian B. calycina Schwägr. also belonging to Streblotrichum because it also has strongly differentiated convolute perichetial leaves like sampled species of Streblotrichum but unlike Barbula unguiculata. However, B. calycina Schwägr and the similar B. subcalycina Müll.Hal. lack other features of the sampled Streblotrichum species and so their correct placement requires confirmation from molecular phylogenetics (Kučera et al. 2013). Until this occurs, these species are retained within Barbula. The remaining Barbula species in Victoria, B. luteola (Mitt.) Paris ex Catches., is also retained within Barbula because it lacks the diagnostic features of the genera segregated from Barbula by Kučera et al. (2013). The description provided pertains to Barbula excluding species transferred to other genera by Kučera et al. (2013).