Good point, I hear you. My thought differs because:
DNA sequencing is being performed as we speak and time will tell what the real truth is. My current knowledge/speculation is that the Dacrymyces is widely and incorrectly misidentified as Guepiniopsis, and therefore the current distribution data is off track. Regarding location, I think the “altitude” will be a critical parameter; low altitude resulting in Dacrymyces and high altitude yielding Guepiniopsis.
New observations are being misidentified, which is likely to delay a wide scale correction.
There is now at least 4 of us making the corrections around WA, so perhaps things will gradually improve.