[I was asked to contribute here by Faendalimas.] I have no knowledge of the background to the two genus names in question. There are, however, some obvious problems with the article's current text. Several statements are unsourced or improperly sourced, and editorial opinions and recommendations are given. I don't think there can be any justification for including editorialising like "The unfortunate history of the genus now came to play" or leading statements like "The reader can decide for themselves whether the issue here is 'science' or just 'politics', and whether there is any solid factual basis for rejecting Wells' name for this taxon". We can only repeat or report what the sources say. In this case, we can state for instance that Georges and Thomson (2010) concluded that Wells' publication did not fulfil the criteria for publication under the ICZN, and that they disputed whether "W. dorsei" warranted recognition as a separate species. I have seen similar cases elsewhere, with statements like "this constitutes a valid publication under the ICZN[1]", where the citation is to the ICZN itself (which naturally doesn't mention the case in question) – this is to my mind obviously unacceptable. On less contentious issues, how many species are there in the genus? We learn that the "genus currently contains five [...] species", but only four are listed. I would also recommend removing the Wikispecies link until it provides complementary information, rather than a blank contradiction. External links are meant to be a service to the reader, which that link isn't at the moment (no. 2 in WP:ELNO).