@egordon88
I don't think that was a good idea. In this case, a taxon split should have been made. And all the new species that have emerged from the subspecies of Senecio squalidus should have been provided with an atlas beforehand.
So now we have an estimated 2000 wrongly determined Senecio squalidus (s.str.). As previously Senecio squalidus rupestris was folded into Senecio squalidus. If the naming of these observations was correct now they are wrong as Senecio rupestris is folded out.
@blue_celery How can we solve this?

If we provide the two species with an atlas and catch up on the taxon split, it would all be automatic.
Have you ever done this @blue_celery

never done something like this

I am also trying to find out the distribution. For example, I can't yet determine which of the two species occurs in GB. In the distribution map I found both species are synonymized.
https://plantatlas2020.org/atlas/2cd4p9h.p65

I reviewed almost everything outside the UK, so I think we’re in good shape for S rupestris. If other species that @blue_celery mentioned need curation, we can look at more advanced splits.