The taxonomic reorganization mentioned by Lin above is not reflected in Wikipedia (yet?).
If you're going to correct the nomenclatural usage of others, I believe you should provide more substantiation than "moved (by scientists)". I'm quite sure that there are frequently disagreements between botanists and between taxonomists as to what a currently appropriate classification (and hence nomenclature) for a group of plants should be.
Presumably, the focus of the academic research and the methodology used both affect the outcome of such research. I don't believe that taxonomy (classification) is simply a matter of right and wrong. There are, however, explicit rules for nomenclature (naming), whether they are followed or not. And even here, there may be grounds for disagreement.
If you're going to impose a particular classification, personally, I would rather you cite the actual source which you are using.
