As a consequence of reactivating this old name, changed after a discussion, the same plant has now 2 names on iNat (cornuta = oestrifera), and independantly of the rank question (species or subspecies) we have to choose only one (and oestrifera 1808 vs cornuta 1809 is prioritary at species rank, while cornuta 1890 vs oestrifera 1971 is prioritary at subspecies rank) :
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?taxon_id=358010
https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/519683

Ophrys scolopax cornuta is accepted by POWO and Vascular Plants of Greece.
https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77189220-1
http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-greece/cdm_dataportal/taxon/3e68d6da-2d89-40b4-9cad-c907a5756771

I think the taxon change is a bit weird. O. scolopax cornuta has been replaced by the SPECIES O. oestrifera, not by the SUBSPECIES O. oestrifera cornutula (the community said, the taxon change should be actually the other way round).
@abounabat couldn’t do the taxon swap O. oestrifera -> O. scolopax cornuta because O. oestrifera has subspecies…
So I reactivated O. scolopax cornuta, the accepted name. We have to re-ID all O. oestrifera observations which are O. scolopax cornuta now. There is no other solution, otherwise we would destroy the taxonomy of O. oestrifera with a reverse taxon change

I also don’t have an opinion on this topic, but I know how to read sources
Those two are synonyms according to POWO and Vascular Plants of Greece:
O. scolopax cornuta = O. oestrifera cornutula

The problem we have on iNat right now:
O. scolopax cornuta = O. oestrifera

But we can’t make this taxon change:
O. oestrifera -> O. scolopax cornuta, because O. oestrifera has subspecies

So if we reactivate O. scolopax cornuta and re-ID the observations, we have O. scolopax cornuta and the „real“ O. oestrifera as two clearly distinguishable taxa

@greek_cicada_project I cannot understand, what is "the „real“ O. oestrifera" in your opinion? And why the synonymy of two names published at different ranks is a problem for you? This is usual in taxonomy. The rank of an accepted name depends on the taxonomic concept adopted by a taxonomist and the accepted name can have synonyms at different ranks (within its group of ranks, i.e., a species can have synonym published as a form but not as a genus or a family). Taxonomy of Ophrys is controversial, with "macrospecies", "mesospecies", and "microspecies" of different authors. What concept would you want to use here?

Why the species rank of O. oestrifera is not sufficient? Why should we use the name cornutula? This taxon is accepted by just few number of extremely "splitter" taxonomists. We should accept either oestrifera or scolopax subsp. cornuta, according to the priority rules. Earlier, the decision was made - https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/519683 Now you renew a mess by the reactivating the name scolopax subsp. cornuta. If you follow the synonymy of the cited databases, all names belong to the same taxon, and it is incorrect to name it "O. oestrifera cornutula". Sorry, but I tired to explain the same every time. You didn't answer on two questions at the beginning of my previous comment.

Well, you confirmed that all three names are synonymous. The nomenclature rules said that only one name has priority at each rank. Thus the question is only what will be the rank of this taxon. Your arguments that all your local floras accept the subspecies rank (where the name cornuta has priority) is not sufficient because I can similarly say that all my local floras accept the species rank (where the name oestrifera has priority).
I didn't contradict to accept cornuta (subspecies rank) at https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/519683 but it was technically impossible and thus oestrifera (species rank) was accepted. It is much better than to have two named taxa accepted for the same biological taxon. What is nontransparent here?

The question of rank is rather scholastic... I am not very familiar wit the iNaturalist system. If you can automatically change O. oestrifera to O. scolopax subsp. cornuta so that O. oestrifera will be its synonym (not a synonym of O. apifera as it was earlier!!!), you may do this, I don't mind. But if the only way it is to re-ID all the observations of O. oestrifera manually, please do not do this, it is not necessary (it is better to accept O. oestrifera with O. scolopax subsp. cornuta as a synonym).

There is another possibility. That is to keep O. oestrifera as species and add subsp. cornutula (based on Rhodian plants) separately to subsp. oestrifera = cornuta (based on Georgian ones), and add also if you need subsp. cerastes (NW-Greece), leptomera (Eubea), ceto (Kyklades), crassicornis (Ionian archip.), etc. according to your field observation of the geographical variability. That was the initial intention for separating O. oestrifera s.l. (a SE-Europe/SW-Asian group) from O. scolopax s.l. (a SW-European group). You can use this possibility if you find it pertinent... Just let us know.

Well, no problem.

@greek_cicada_project : how could we proceed now for this superflous name (O. scolopax cornuta) ? Do you agree for swapping it into O. oestrifera s.l. or directly into O. oestrifera subsp. oestrifera ? Do you prefer we create the name O. oestrifera subsp cornuta ?

Dear Sotirios, please stop to remind us that the cyber portal of flora of Greece consider cornuta and cornutula as synonym. It is a relative point of view, as each taxonomical opinion. Don't forget that the iNat taxonomy is not a Greek one but a global one. Then the general reasoning is :
-- either you consider all oestrifera/cornuta variation as synonyms, and then all names (cornutula, minuscula, etc.) are included in O. (scolopax ssp.) cornuta and/or under O. oestrifera s.l. ;
-- either you want to recognise several of them and them you have to precise each ssp. under oestrifera s.l.
You can choose your preference, but the subject debated here was the double use of the name O. scolopax cornuta vs O. oestrifera (ssp. oestrifera).
I would like to solve the problem adding the name O. oestrifera ssp. cornuta, in addition to O. oestrifera ssp. oestrifera. Then people that want to use "cornuta" still could, people that prefer other name as cornutula, minuscula etc. could also, and finally people that prefer to merge all of them under oestrifera s.l. still could. While cornuta and oestrifera were not described from same country (Georgia vs Crimea), it is not shocking that several experts prefer to distinguish them (with cornuta s.s. = the modern abkhasica if I remember well ?).
Unfortunately, the combinaton O. oestrifera subsp. cornuta seems to have not been created yet, so I cannot use here on iNat... So until new data, we should let cornuta as synonym of oestrifera subsp. oestrifera.

It is not a good idea to add O. oestrifera subsp. cornuta. Even Delforge doesn't make a difference between oestrifera and cornuta (although he accepts O. abchasica instead of cornuta)! If this subspecies will be added, it will be a sort of extremely splitting system, where subsp. cornuta will be restricted to a small area in Georgia and Russia. On the other hand, I guess that people will use the name cornuta for Greek plants and this will be nonsense if it will be separated from subsp. oestrifera. Please do not do this. The combination exists (Ophrys oestrifera subsp. cornuta (Steven) K. Richt. 1890, Pl. Eur. 1: 264.), but it should be a synonym of subsp. oestrifera.

So if I did understand everything clearly, we cannot swap O. scolopax cornuta with O. oestrifera cornutula, but only with O. oestrifera subsp. oestrifera or oestrifera s.l.
Then it would be good to swap O. scolopax cornuta with O. oestrifera ssp. oestrifera (so that it can be used easier for taxon changes in future)

Ok here's the taxon change, drafted but not commited https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/103322