Hypsibius sattleri Richt. (Iharos 1963)
H. bakonyiensis Iharos (Iharos 1969)
H. (I.) sattleri (Mihelčič 1972)
Hypsibius bakonyiensis (Iharos, 1964) (Hypsibius (I.) sattleri Auct., partim) (Maucci 1988) I. sattleri (Garitano-Zavala 1996)
Terra typica: Germany (Europe)
Argentina:
• 41 ° 58 ′S, 71 ° 28 ′W; 1,460 m asl: Rio Negro Province, El Bolsón, Piltriquitron Mt., mosses on rocks and barks of trees near edge within Nothofagus pumilio forest. Iharos (1963)
• Undefined localities cited according Mihelčič (1967), cypress grove, dry mosses and lichens on rocks in full sun and dry and wet tufts and rosette plants on rocks (3 samples). Mihelčič (1972)
Bolivia:
• 16 ° 13 ′S, 68 ° 13 ′W; 4,550–4,700 m asl: La Paz Department, Cordillera de la Real de los Andes, Tuni, subnival floor, cushion moss. Garitano-Zavala (1995, 1996)
• 16 ° 18 ′S, 68 ° 17 ′W; 4,300–4,400 m asl: La Paz Department, Cordillera de la Real de los Andes, Wila Kunka, high Andean floor, cushion moss. Garitano-Zavala (1995, 1996)
• 16 ° 20 ′S, 68 ° 23 ′W; 4,650–4,700m asl: La Paz Department, Cordillera de la Real de los Andes, La Cumbre, subnival floor, cushion moss. Garitano-Zavala (1995, 1996)
Chile:
• 33 °04′S, 71 °00′W; 1,000 m asl: Region RM Metropolitana (Región Metropolitana de Santiago), Tiltil, Cuesta La Dormida, soil on dry forest. Iharos (1969)
• 51 ° 34 ′S, 72 ° 36 ′W; 200 m asl: Region XII Magallanes (Región de Magallanes y de la Antártica Chilena), Ultima Esperanza, near Cueva del Milodón, mosses on rocks, in sunlight. Maucci (1988)
Colombia:
• 11 °06′20.0′′N, 74 °03′50.0′′W; 2,200 m asl: Magdalena Department, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, between La Tagua and Cuchilla de San Lorenzo, sub-Andean forest, lichen on rock. Lisi et al. (2014)
Ecuador:
• 00° 22 ′S, 78 ° 55 ′W, 1,100 m asl: Cotopaxi Province, Otonga (San Pedro de las Pampas) [Otonga Nature Reserve], liverwort (Plagiochila punctata). Pilato et al. (2001)
Record numbers: Argentina: 2, Bolivia: 3, Chile: 2, Colombia: 1, Ecuador: 1; total: 9.
Remarks: This member of the tuberculatus- group has a history of major taxonomic confusion, but been redescribed from contemporary material (Dastych 1990). Nevertheless, its cosmopolitan distribution remains questionable (McInnes, 1994 a), requiring major taxonomic revision.