From taxon page: Note: See Central American Mosses and Crosby & Magill (2020) for a different synonymy, which accepts Anisothecium and Anisothecium rufescens as an accepted combination, therefore the later needs to have its own taxon page not a redirect.
- The Central American Mosses database pulls its data from Tropicos, and is not an independent source. The Tropicos database cites a 1999 paper as the reference for using Anisothecium rufescens, but Dicranella rufescens is the name used in the Flora of North America, vol. 27, which is edited by the same set of specialists also at the Missouri Botanical Garden. The FNA volume was published in 2007, eight years after the source cited in Tropicos. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree. Central American Mosses definitely does not pull all of its data from Tropicos (which has more mess than the average secondary scource), note CAMS' edit line (modified 2011), see Crosby's discussion here . As a non-specialist I am convinced by his synapomorphy. Clearly this is an emerging discussion within the Bryophyte community, which we have have to reflect due to OR policy. There are no primary sources as far as I can find so it is taxonomic opinion and so disputed, therefore surely Anisothecium rufescens deserves its own taxon page. One name taxon one page is unachievable in all instances. Andyboorman (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)