See related thread: A Couple of Things People Should Know About Salix babylonica where several posters agreed that S. babylonica (the classic weeping willow) doesn’t occur in places that have cold winters, and in those places a willow that weeps must be a hybrid.
In that thread, it’s mentioned in passing that the hybrid found in North America is Salix xsepulcralis and that S. xpendulina is synonymous with S. xsepulcralis. But this merge of the two taxa is a very recent change: it comes from Belyaeva et al.'s comprehensive paper The application of scientific names to plants in cultivation: Salix vitellina L. and related taxa (Salicaceae) which was only published in 2018 and isn’t yet reflected in most of the authoritative online sources. Most of them follow the Flora of North America (section: Salix babylonica), authored by George W. Argus and published in 2010. ITIS cites this as their main authority for accepting both taxa as valid names. In my particular location, the major reference work is the Catalogue of the Vascular Flora of New York State by David Werier, from 2017, which follows suit. I don’t even know which botanists have accepted Belyaeva et al.'s conclusions, but at any rate Kew’s Plants of the World Online does.
Most to the point, the Wikipedia articles that iNaturalist uses as species descriptions haven’t been updated and don’t even mention the synonymy!
Well, it seems that someone’s been silently moving all identifications of S. xpendulina to S. xsepulcralis, but nowhere on iNaturalist, as far as I can find, is there any explicit statement of why to do so. The pages for both hybrids exist, with Wikipedia “About” sections, and there isn’t even a “misidentification” note in the “Similar Species” section.
Shouldn’t this be addressed?