This would be a deviation from the iNat taxonomic framework for vascular plants, Plants of the World Online (POWO), so I am inviting comment from other regional identifiers of Peperomia in the community before re-splitting P. galapagensis:

@frank_arroyo @rudygelis @gesnerio @tgosliner @jasonrgrant @horticultix @vechocho

All, please feel free to @ tag additional iNat community members who may have an interest in this question. See @guido_mathieu 's discussion of the differences between species here: http://www.peperomia.net/notes.asp?id=969, and the current POWO synonymy here: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/678848-1#synonyms

@guido_mathieu, some questions for you that will help with the split:

You already mentioned (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/36280715) that P. inaequalifolia is not present on the Galapagos Islands. Conversely, is P. galapagensis entirely endemic to the Galapagos? If so, that will make the split in iNat easier since we can atlas the two taxa first.

Am I reading your web site correctly that you consider P. galapagensis var. ramulosa a synonym not worthy of taxonomic recognition?

Thanks all!

Indeed, P. galapagensis is endemic to the Galapagos Islands.
Yunker (who published var. ramulosa as a new combination for P. ramulosa) says in the protologue
'With the exception of the amount of pubescence, I can find no essential difference between P. ramulosa as described by Andersson and P. galapagensis'
As the 'amount' of pubescence is a gradual character (and prone to interpretation), I see no sound reason to keep the variety as a separate entity...

Split committed: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/69341