Please cite the published source for this change. Happy in principle assuming this is based on published, peer-reviewed work.

@tangatawhenua - thanks. I wasn't aware of this particular proposal in iNaturalist, but I am aware of some people's desire to split up Lycopodiella.

I don't support it, as I think it is unnecessary taxonomic change by taxonomists wanting to make a name for themselves rather than doing the best by their community of users, along the lines of what I've discussed here: https://blog.tepapa.govt.nz/2018/08/31/why-do-scientific-names-change-kiokio-by-any-other-name/

The splitting of Lycopodiella is among a bunch of changes adopted by the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group that we won't be following for the Flora of New Zealand, as outlined here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324435388_The_Pteridophyte_Phylogeny_Group's_recommendations_in_relation_to_ferns_and_lycophytes_in_the_eFloraNZ

However, as much as I think splitting Lycopodiella is a bad idea, iNaturalist is a global platform, so even in New Zealand we may get caught in the poor decisions of others.

Here is the reference:
PPG I (2016). A community‐derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns. Journal of Systematics and Evolution:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jse.12229

Thanks for your comments. As a disclaimer, we contributed the Ophioglossaceae to PPG1, and I have a new postdoc working on a new worldwide molecular phylogeny of Ophioglossaceae. We also aim to disentangle the species of Sceptridium (Botrychium sub. Scetridium) worldwide, which is going to be very challenging.

As far as Lycopodiella, I'm not an expert on this group, I was simply making a suggested taxon swap based on what was accepted in PPG1.

@lycophyte
ideas

This, as Leon says, is a relatively "straight-forward" lumping versus splitting decision. You could recognize a single monophyletic Lycopodiella s. lat., or you could recognize four genera (as does the PPG: Lycopodiella, Pseudolycopodiella, Palhinhaea, and Lateristachys). In my opinion (and in the consensus of the pteridological community, as reflected in the PPG, which was authored by nearly 100 people) the later approach is preferable: it is more informative (the four genera are morphologically distinct lineages and, perhaps more importantly, are deeply evolutionarily distinct--the first of these genera diverged from the ancestor of the others around 120 million years ago [dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago...]--so it seems preposterous to treat them all as members of the same genus). You won't find an angiosperm genus with a crown age of 120 million years. See Testo et al. 2018 -- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Weston_Testo/publication/325646697_Overcoming_among-lineage_rate_heterogeneity_to_infer_the_divergence_times_and_biogeography_of_the_clubmoss_family_Lycopodiaceae/links/5b1ab3eb45851587f29d22d7/Overcoming-among-lineage-rate-heterogeneity-to-infer-the-divergence-times-and-biogeography-of-the-clubmoss-family-Lycopodiaceae.pdf

Great!

I'll copy in @choess here, to ensure he's abreast of the situation