The name Lindquistia indica was introduced for the asexual stage of Podosordaria leporina at a time when two different names for these stages of the same fungus were allowed. They are synonyms.

The genus Podosordaria is typified by P. mexicana.
In this paper ...
Rogers, J.D., Ju, Y.-M., San Martín, F., 1997. Podosordaria: a redefinition based on
cultural studies of the type species, P. mexicana, and two new species. Mycotaxon 67, 61–72.
Rogers et al found that the anamorph of P. mexicana did not have a Linquistia anamorph and so they moved species that did to Poronia because the type species of Poronia (Poronia gleditschii) does have a Lindquistia anamorph and the generic name has priority. Thus the correct name for the fungus became ...

Poronia leporina
syn: Podosordia leporina
syn: Linquistia indica

As far as I can tell this remains the case. And so a taxon swap is needed into Poronia leporina

Thanks for that info Jerry!

in the future, it'd be nice if someone could segregate the rare and distinctive anamorph observations in advance of taxon swaps, marking them in some way, idk, before they all into a great big pile of observations under a teleomorph name

what is meant is that there is a distinct one or more organisms we have been calling Lindquistia for a number of years now, whose one or more teleomorphs are mostly unknown, and it is obstructive to the work of collating information about this one or more organisms when, one day, they're all arbitrarily renamed Poronia for nomenclatural reasons.

on MO one was able to "force" a deprecated name if they wished, after being informed by the site that said name was deprecated and asked if they were sure they wished to proceed. that was an immensely important piece of functionality which is 100% absent on iNat.

?

You are explaining a concept I'm fully familiar with to me as though it's any kind of relevant response to the issue I'm raising. It's not.

If iNat wishes to have nomenclatural purity in the labeling of its observations, so be it, but nomenclatural purity can and does obscure meaningful taxonomic considerations like the one highlighted here. If you or anyone else wishes to call all Lindquistia-like anamorphs, Poronia, (despite the fact that at least one observation on the site suggests a Podosordaria teleomorph for a Lindquistia anamorph), fine. All I'm advocating for is that the taxonomically relevant data be taken into consideration and meaningfully preserved in advance of such sweeping nomenclatural decisions, as was done in this "swap." I've done that retroactively in the creation of a traditional project that segregates the observations previously identified as Lindquistia, which may or may not all correspond to one or more Poronia spp., but this had to be done by manually tracking down and manually adding each of those to that project; a task which could be avoided in the future by performing such an operation before or alongside such a swap.