I still stand by my recommendation. If there’s no single universal reference for plants that is usable, choose different references for each group. It sounds like you’re already doing this for ferns (switching to the WFO). The main goal should be having an easy to manage taxonomy, not having a cutting edge or “scientifically correct” taxonomy (as there is no such thing). Most research museums use taxonomies that are 50+ years old for their catalogs. Even Wikipedia uses 20 year old taxonomies. The standard for mammal taxonomy on Wikipedia is Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (2005). I used to be frustrated by the fact that iNaturalist adheres strictly to the World Spider Catalog as it sometimes meant waiting months or years for taxonomic changes to be reflected on iNaturalist. And sometimes I didn’t agree personally with the taxonomy it provided. But after seeing how much chaos and argument there is for other groups, I’m now very happy to wait. And for those people not willing to wait there are observation fields like “Provisional Species Name” that you can use in the meantime. iNaturalist curators shouldn’t be having debates about taxonomy. They should be having debates about what taxonomic catalogs to use and then stick to those catalogs, even though they are all slow and imperfect. If the catalogs are truly unusable, you should as a community figure out ways to improve or replace those catalogs (outside of iNaturalist). That’s what the bird folks did. As the iNaturalist staff have reiterated many times, iNaturalist is not intended to be a taxonomic reference. Sometimes the solution to an intractable problem is accepting imperfection. Now with all that said, I have to admit that I have no actual experience with plant taxonomy curation on iNaturalist so I’m just an armchair commentator throwing out (probably useless) opinions.