Take a look at this paper.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
I'm a little surprised by the sensitivity at the removal of the old genus, but if someone has a specific problem with the publication, let's talk about it.
If and when you ever need to find papers like this it's usually pretty to easy to visit Google scholar and find them. Much better to get at the source in my opinion, rather than debate the authority of the CoL (which I have historically found suspect on a few occasions).
Visit this site and enter "Ceropegia Stapelia revised", and the link above appears in the second position.
https://scholar.google.com
