But see flag: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/340969

This is not true. Under Maytenus they included the descriptions of the genera from Flora zambesiaca (1966), and the more recent Flora tropical East Africa which was based on an old manuscript. Here Maytenus is treated as an incredibly variable taxon which also include Gymnosporia (the spiny members). The biggest problem with POWO is that they do not include a reason (not even based on a scientific publication). Instead followed an outdated 19966 concept which has proved to be wrong with repeated DNA analysis. As Brazil follow the new classification and the major North American Herbarium and database (Tropicos) now follow and accept Monteverdia it is logical to deviate in this case from POWO which is clearly paraphyletic. The latest peer reviewed publications publishing should be followed.

This species illustrate the difficulty in working with this family. This South American spiny species was recognised in its own genus Moya which is similar to the African and Asian (and one Australian) species of Gymnosporia. But they are distantly unrelated. The genus Moya is accepted here.

Hi @kitty12, @robertarcher397 since we are still treating Monteverdia as a synonym of Maytenus, and I don't have access to modern references disputing this, or the time to go doing my own research on it, I am going to swap this into Maytenus. If POWO should move on with the split I we can follow suit.