The only problem I have with this ID is that the hairs do not appear to be retrose. This distinguishes it from antrosum in the PlantNet key. Red and pink flower forms of antrosum are known. Red and pink flowered plants were growing side by side at the Tops both along the track shown here and on the plain. I examined the hairs with a lens in the field and found them identical. Maybe there is another character to distinguish the two species.
Plants were isolated with, no other (paler) plants near it, in this locality which was woodland (along firetrail) not plains where darker and lighter plants were very evident side by side. Initial identification as G. brevicaule followed Vic Flora, key characteristics being low habit and length of petals to sepals. I did not inspect hairs with hand lens.
Yes, I must admit I was also going off of length ratio between the petals and sepals. Didn't consider whether the hairs were antrorse or retrorse, though the Vicflora key does seem to imply that in G.brevicaule the hairs are only usually retrorse. Forest, and not swampy or open habitat is very interesting, this should be a plant of exposed areas as I understand it. Perhaps we should reconsider?
Certainly. Re-checking habitat for both species shows G. antrorsum distribution includes montane forests as well as grasslands, whereas G. brevicaule is limited to treeless areas.
There were specimens of pale flowered antrorsum along the trail in the forest and I had a conversation with Maartje about the two colour forms. It seems an unlikely habitat for brevicaule that is supposed to be restricted to alpine grasslands rather than montane habitats. I will ask Jackie Miles for an opinion using my photo.