“Besides, phylogenetic analysis based on DNA sequences (Pastore et al. 2011) have brought to light Hyptis as a polyphyletic genus since all other Hyptidinae genera appeared nested within Hyptis lineages in the cladograms. Also, the polyphyly of the genus had been previously suggested by the phenetic analysis of morphological characters (El-Gazzar & Rabei 2008). Given this complexity, two solutions may be taken, one is to reduce all other Hyptidinae genera under Hyptis, otherwise it should be recognized a much larger number of genera. In this context, Pastore et al. (2011) claimed for the segregation of new genera to build a monophyletic delimitation of Hyptis as a better solution rather than the submersion of all Hyptidinae within only one genus. Harley & Pastore (2012) did not consider a good choice leaving a single genus with a broad range of morphological variation, purportedly unmatched in any other genus of flowering plants. So, they decided to integrate a new classification proposal for Hyptidinae segregating new genera grounded mainly in the cladograms presented by Pastore et al. (2011). Accordingly, they increased the number of genera within the subtribe from 8 (Harley et al. 2004) to 19, with the coinage of six new generic names and status change of five infrageneric categories. Moreover, this approach generates 142 new nomenclatural combinations.
However, little less than half of Hyptidinae species are represented in Pastore et al. (2011), and although the clades are well supported in the topology shown, there are also several politomies in the cladograms that create mistrust in the clade relationships in spite of their support. In addition, distinction of the genera they proposed is ambiguous through the dichotomous key provided (Harley & Pastore 2012): characters are not precisely defined, measurements are not always used in lieu of uncertain terms, the parallelism between two leads is inconsistent and not clearly contrasting, several unqualified negative statements are done; these features are contrary to what is recommended to construct an identification key (Judd et al. 2008). Moreover, morphological diversity is not synonymous with taxonomic diversity, and a broad morphological variation is not unique of Hyptis s.l. For example, in the large subtribe Euphorbiinae some authors decided to retain a single well-known and easily identifiable genus, Euphorbia Linnaeus (1753: 450), instead of a vaguely circumscribed multitude of genera; thereby Euphorbia becomes one of the most striking morphologically diversified genera of vascular plants, which embraces perennial and annual herbs, erect and scandent shrubs, trees, geophytes and succulents, including representatives of the three different kinds of carbon fixation C3, C4 and CAM, a high variability of ploidy levels, but unified by the particular and conserved configuration of its inflorescences, the cyathia (Steinmann & Porter 2002, Horn et al. 2012, Yang et al. 2012, Dorsey et al. 2013, Riina et al. 2013). Another important consideration is that a classification pursues conflicting goals, on one hand it tries to be a true picture of evolutionary history, and on the other it is committed to be practical in order to be useful to general public and not being only an academic whim; thus, an ethic position as a systematist should be to find a balance between both sides. The convenience of a classification can be evaluated in terms that it implies easily diagnosable groups (i.e. well supported, preferably with synapomorphic characters), and in second instance, few nomenclatural changes. Submerging all Hyptidinae within Hyptis demands 32 nomenclatural changes almost 5 times less than the choice taken by Harley and Pastore (2012). In summary, taking in consideration the uncertainty about phylogenetic results, the hardness in morphologically delimiting Hyptidinae genera, we keep on recognizing provisionally the traditional Hyptis definition instead of several new poorly defined genera. It is probable that the best solution in the near future will be to submerge all Hyptidinae within Hyptis; though, more compelling evidence is needed to take a definitive decision.”

@bouteloua Hey Cassi. Apologies for bugging you about a minor swap, but do you have experience reverting a committed swap? I'm hoping there's an easy solution, but I can't seem to find the proper route after digging around on the site and on iNat's Google Groups board...

Thanks @bouteloua .

Hi @loarie , would you be willing/able to revert this committed swap? I made this swap according to taxonomic changes from POWO, but it appears the changes do not reflect the true taxonomy. If a reversion is not possible, is there another route I should take to resolve this?

Oh, sorry. This one https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/36124

True. I'm happy to go through all 90 of those observations and clean them up, but I'm also ok with leaving it if it's a hassle for you.

@xanergo Are you suggesting that ALL Cantinoa mutabilis should be called Hyptis mutabilis, or are there some populations that should retain the name "Cantinoa?

@xanergo Ah, ok. I was thinking it was only a partial swap based on geography. I'll just swap the names back and hope nobody comes along again and changes it back according to POWO standards.