No - this is silly.

Erica lanata is a good concept, and the IDs are all to the same species - making them Erica is just ridiculous.

This is based on https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/498859

But the concept we are all using is
Erica lanata Andrews
First published in Col. Engr. Heaths, ed. 2, 3: t. 121 (1845), nom. illeg.
This name is a synonym of Erica flaccida

So ALL the IDs are for the Erica flaccida version of Erica lanata - to sink this to the genus just makes no sense whatsover. It needs to be swapped into Erica flaccida

There needs to be a reference to the flag and discussion, otherwise some overeager curator may commit this.

OK: but let us move the discussion here then.

https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/article/110498/

10. Erica lanata J.C. Wendl. (1798), non Andrews (1806)
Messrs Lee & Kennedy had employed the name “Erica lanata” in the manuscript list, mentioned previously (see Nelson and Oliver (2004: 138)), of species that had been introduced into cultivation by the firm before 1808. Andrews (1806: t. 121) was undoubtedly using this binomial for the same plant. However, the binomial had been published eight years earlier by Johann Christoph Wendland (1755–1828) for a different species (Wendland 1798: 45). The persistent use of Andrews’s binomial, despite the priority of Wendland’s, is inexplicable. As noted by Dulfer (1965: 44), Wendland’s name was a synonym of Erica conspicua Sol., which Dulfer relegated to a variety of E. curviflora L. (var. splendens (J.C. Wendl.) Dulfer = E. splendens J.C. Wendl., non Andrews), but is currently regarded as a distinct species (Oliver and Oliver 2000, 2003; Oliver 2012). There is a later name available to replace Erica lanata Andrews and that is E. flaccida Hort. ex Link; Sinclair (1825: 10) was the first to make this equation in print. Erica flaccida has been traced in print in several publications (e.g. Anonymous (1808: 191); Cushing (1812: 224; 1814, 224)) and in Conrad Loddiges & Sons’ catalogue for 1811, before it was taken up by Link (1821: 1: 367), who cited English gardeners as his source. None of the sources published prior to 1821 included a diagnosis or description.

So please redo this SWAP to
Erica lanata will become Erica flaccida
and execute it.

Why not delete it now ...