That is certainly your choice. I would voice a bit of caution about taxonomic disagreements, which I have had in various areas here before.

For example, if someone is looking for A. lloydii, they will find this entry in the database, which recognizes that plant as a former subspecies.

Living Rock (Ariocarpus fissuratus)

So the name will show up in search results and get them to the plant in question. A clearly labeled caption and/or comment about the plant can say exactly what you think it should be called, in as many words, when you disagree. My point is, the way the database is organized and searches are realized, a name like Ariocarpus lloydii still works as a useful identifier.

A. lloydii was described in 1911 and made a variety of fissuratus in 1941. Neither my cactus reference (Anderson, 2001) nor my geographic cactus reference (Hernandez & Gomez Hinostrosa, 2011) recognize it as a species. Anderson mentions a 1997 paper "suggesting formal recognition of infraspecific taxa is not appropriate." I don't know what source you're basing your nomenclature on, but the species lloydii was lumped a long time ago, the best I can tell, disjunct geography and distinguishing features aside. Species names come and go, so I try not to become too attached to them.

These are just my thoughts and opinions as an occasional close observer of the cactus part of the database. I think your pictures are helpful. I think healthy debate over names has an important place here. I think you have wisdom to impart, should you direct it in the form of comments or captions. I have been leaving comments about the genus and various species, for example (scroll down on these pages to read):

Ariocarpus

My comment on this page explains an act of splitting which has been accepted (for now):

Living Rock (Ariocarpus trigonus)