Here's a deviation while we discuss
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/206318
do we want to maintain this or follow POWO in lumping Glandularia into Verbena

Particularly, in the case of Glandularia corymbosa. https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/521827
I guess Glandularia should be lumped into Verbena. Accepted species names should appear in INat
.

Unfortunately, logic and sense are subservient to monophyly. So it just takes one study to show that Junellia and Glandularia are nested within Verbena and viola: you only have one genus.
Email POWO and ask. They are really helpful and will provide the evidence to back their decisions, or update them. (ignore the automatic Covid warnings about lockdown, pandemics and skeleton staff: they do respond)

Why not ask Richard to contact POWO and find out what is happenning?

POWO does this sort of thing. You will probably discover something like the type of Glandularia is a Verbana, and therefore you cannot use it for the new genus, but must use another name. The problem is that POWO does not communicate its internal reasoning, but makes its changes anyway, and one finds out by accident that something is wrong, and only then does one find the reason.
Good luck. Let us hope that if it is not a POWO error, that it is not too onerous, one way or the other.
If it were not for iNaturalist, I know of at least three errors from southern Africa that our taxonomists did not know about, and were discovered via the discrepancy between the literature and POWO in the iNat dictionary.

& they are Eurocentric. Being third world, we are way down the pecking order Europe - America - Australia (stole Acacia - will they ever be forgiven?: but same argument - hurt and confused by all the name changes), and only then us, so we know all about it.

But a little "inertia" is always a good thing. We have burnt our fingers in the Cape by jumping on the DNA bandwagon, only to discover that more DNA data reverted to the good old-fashioned classification. Yes, it means a very solid case is required, but is that not better?
Dont underestimate the value of the RHS. They will probably concur, and rubberstamp the change, preventing any one official being tarred with a difficult brush. If they dont: well then you know whom to convince!

I asked Rafaël Govaerts at Kew what the status was and he said this:
"As you know they are sister so it is possible to recognise them as separate genera. However as in the papers that support that: http://www.phytoneuron.net/PhytoN-Verbclassification.pdf is mentioned: “The close relationship between Verbena and Glandularia is emphasized by the discovery (Yuan & Olmstead 2008a) that two independent intergeneric chloroplast transfers have occurred, both from Verbena to Glandularia. “One is from a diploid North American Verbena species [V. hastata or V. orcuttiana, as sampled] to a polyploid North American Glandularia species [G. bipinnatifida (Nutt.) Nutt., as sampled]. The other is more ancient, from the South American Verbena group [sect. Verbenaca] to the common ancestor of a major Glandularia lineage [including G. canadensis (L.) Nutt.], which has radiated subsequently in both South and North America”, which indicates their intermingled history and therefore we see no need to split Verbena as it better reflects their evolutionary history."

I find dealing with the Kew mafia tiresome. Mr. Govaerts has never done any molecular phylogenetic research, nor published any interpretations of molecular phylogenies to address systematic relationships. I think he has a rather simplistic understanding of molecular evolution as it pertains to interpreting molecular data. So, I find it laughable in a very literal sense when he sites a single publication from my research lab out of the many we have published on this group to reach a diametrically opposed conclusion to our published work. The fact that no one who works on Verbenaceae adopts their treatment of Glandularia and Verbena would chasten them, but it seems to only serve to stiffen their resistance.