As expected, there are many cases of discrepancies between the used backbones and the long-accepted taxonomy of certain taxa. It couldn't be different.
This is my very own and debatable point of view: I think it is quite weird that we must wait for an external subject (though very authoritative and our present reference as taxonomic backbone for plants) to revise its taxonomic treatment of a certain taxon in order to have it here recognized as an independent taxon.
In some cases it is suggested to get in contact with that subject to ask its staff to revise their point of view on a given taxon. As regards, I think it would be very impolite to bring someone's attention to their (presumed) wrong taxonomic treatment of a certain taxon.
Definitively, I think that those who adjust the iNat taxonomy to that of a given backbone should take much more care in changing iNat taxonomy. Wouldn't it be worth taking a look at other taxonomic treatments before or to ask the point of view of those who are supposed to know that taxon well?
PS: I know which are the "rules" but, at the same time, I am deeply convinced that following overzealously the rules is not always the best.
