I am eager for this swap to occur. Hybrids between P. conspicua/P. blephariglottis and related species (P. ciliaris, P. cristata, and P. chapmanii) are not satisfactorily identified. Furthermore, confusion with observers about which name to choose is prevalent, and I must refrain from identifying plants to species-level for fear of straying into controversy.

The vast majority of southeastern botanists (including Weakley) consider these separate species. Do either of you have field experience with this taxon?

@bouteloua and @loarie -- This seems to be another case where the outdated Worldwide "compiled taxonomy" of POWO (which generally lags about 1-3 decades behind modern understanding) is being used as a rationale for a taxon swap that takes iNaturalist backwards. Note also the rationale for the swap -- the frustrating nature of IDing the 2 species on iNaturalist. There needs to be a strong commitment that the taxonomy in iNaturalist is based on science not ID convenience from photographs.

Perhaps we need to get back to those discussions we had 6 months ago.

@whiteoak, I disagree with your presumption that the rationale for this swap was the frustrating nature of identifying the two, or that it was merely made for convenience. My motivation for the swap was to have one name in use on iNat for this taxon. If my main motivation for weighing in on swaps and changes were to simplify identification, would I have supported changes involving the cryptic species discussed in The Systematics of the Spiranthes cernua Species Complex (Orchidaceae): Untangling the Gordian Knot? Species such as S. arcisepala, S. incurva, and S. niklasii make the S. cernua complex considerably harder to identify, especially from photos alone. The former species is an excellent example of plants not evolving for the convenience of taxonomists, as some individuals aren't readily identifiable without genetics.

Observers who know this taxon as P. blephariglottis var. conspicua were able to identify it as such, or as P. blephariglottis, which should not be the case if other iNat users are identifying their observations as P. conspicua. Whether you believe this taxon is a variety or a full species, we should all be able to agree that both names shouldn't be options on the site. If both names are present, it indicates that P. conspicua and P. blephariglottis var. conspicua are actually different taxa. To be clear, hybrids involving varieties (such as C. ×kostiukiae, S. ×intermedia, or the varieties of C. ×andrewsii) are not unheard of, and that alone does little to support species-level recognition.

Furthermore, from what I can tell, POWO lists P. conspicua (Nash) P.M. Br. as a synonym of P. blephariglottis var. conspicua, so it seems the database is not outdated in this particular case. Unless I'm missing something, they're aware of P. conspicua but do not accept it as a full species, preferring to retain its varietal status. However, that's not to say that iNat shouldn't deviate from their taxonomy as necessary.

I found this draft while looking to flag this taxon in an effort to get one of the names merged with the other. Since it had been in draft form for so long, I wrongly assumed that there wouldn't be so much backlash. If I had known, I would've probably pushed for having P. conspicua as the name for this taxon to better represent the community.

In summary, although I tend to consider this taxon a variety, my intent here is just to have one name in usage on iNaturalist. If that means deviating from Kew and/or contradicting my own beliefs, so be it. As long as the iNat taxonomy is consistent and contains no contradictions, then I'm content.