and doi: 10.5248/116.265

This change was in specific response to a direct request/flag, and even then I generally only do them when they affect the taxa on my home turf - NZ - or they are just innocuous 'book keeping' changes. Not really my call to decide on correct names elsewhere.

Polypores aren't my thing, but I would say this about the paper ... The inclusive classification in that paper combines a number of genera into a broad Trametes. That is just one way of looking at the data. The clades within it are reasonably well supported and could be accepted as separate genera (as the authors themselves state), and do fit historic use - mostly. In that view Pycnoporus would be accepted, as would Lenzites and so on. There would be a few misplaced species but that is all. Either view is objectively 'correct' on the evidence of the phylogenetic data. The lumping or splitting is then determined by the rather subjective notion of generic boundaries. The authors chose a broad view because they believe some of the segregate genera would be difficult to separate on morphology. For NZ taxa at least I would disagree.