https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/138224

I'm sorry that I have to change the name of this species again. Even though it was described in 1798 as Statice spicata and later transferred to the genus Psylliostachys as Psylliostachys spicata, this does not automatically mean that this is the currently valid scientific name:

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:687121-1

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4PS95

https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list/?name=Psylliostachys-spicatus#plantUid-252648

According to the currently valid International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, some names are changed according to the established rules. This can have various reasons, for example this is also the case if the epithet has the wrong gender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_algae,_fungi,_and_plants

https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php

A very recent example is that numerous racist names were subsequently changed: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02365-x

For example, the racist name Protea caffra became the current and scientifically accepted name Protea afra: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:705664-1

Incidentally, many of the old racist names have still not been corrected at iNaturalist. This is work that is still awaiting us curators. I often take care of changes that were actually made years ago, which actually shows that we need more committed curators to take care of maintaining and updating the taxonomy. This backlog is therefore unfortunately not unusual...