POWO has split off Pectinopitys from Prumnopitys and moved 6 species there
Prumnopitys exigua -> Pectinopitys exigua
Prumnopitys ferruginea -> Pectinopitys ferruginea
Prumnopitys ferruginoides -> Pectinopitys ferruginoides
Prumnopitys harmsiana -> Pectinopitys harmsiana
Prumnopitys ladei -> Pectinopitys ladei
Prumnopitys standleyi -> Pectinopitys standleyi
I wired this up as a deviation while we discuss:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/224425
should we follow suit?
@lloyd_esler @mark_smale @david_lyttle @john_barkla @jon_sullivan @savvy @duncanmc42 @jacqui-nz @johnvandenhoeven

I agree with POWO. New Zealand Plant Names Database doesn't follow this but there is embryological and genetic evidence (sadly still unpublished - but the author is working on getting it published) that supports the recognition of the genus as distinct from Prumnopitys. The issue is its circumscription, some conifer experts are unhappy that Prumnopitys harmsiana and P. standleyi were placed in Pectinopitys and in Australia (least ways the APNI) they do not accept Pectinopitys for their endemic Prumnopitys ladei. From a New Zealand perspective this is immaterial as the type of the genus Pectinopitys is P. ferruginea (miro) a New Zealand endemic tree. The New Caledonia species is very similar to miro and fits nicely in Pectinopitys.

For these reasons, as it affects New Zealand I follow the generic split. I cannot comment on the status of the Australian and American species though.

I have created the pages (inactive taxa for now), and drafted the taxon swaps:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532259-Pectinopitys
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532265-Pectinopitys-exigua
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139203
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532266-Pectinopitys-ferruginea
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139204
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532268-Pectinopitys-ferruginoides
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139205
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532270-Pectinopitys-harmsiana
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139206
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532271-Pectinopitys-ladei
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139207
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1532272-Pectinopitys-standleyi
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/139208

Previously cited in this flag: @loarie @lloyd_esler @mark_smale @david_lyttle @john_barkla @jon_sullivan @savvy @duncanmc42 @jacqui-nz @johnvandenhoeven @pjd1
Other top identifiers of the genus Prumnopitys : @mattbrownsky @dave_holland @tramperjames @leonperrie @sarah_richardson @meurkc @glenn-nz
Do you agree ?

Excellent. I agree with this.

It should be noted that the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network (nzpcn.org.nz), Landcare Research (CRI) plant names database, world conifer checklist and other world databases use Pectinopitys which is morphologically well marked from Prumnopitys. If we are to accept Manoao as distinct from Lagarostrobus and Lepidothamnus then as a matter of consistency we should also accept Pectinopitys. Further, the standard set by iNaturalist is to follow POWO.

Sounds like there's a good genetic and morphological basis for a taxon split here which has been agreed upon by multiple authorities on the subject. With that in mind it seems logical for inat to follow suit.