Can you provide an authority for this action, please? My understanding is that Tolype and Labedera are both valid genera, but primitiva belongs in Tolype, not in Labedera, which is closer to Micromphalia than Tolype (Becker 2001).

Becker, V.O. 2001. The identity of some unrecognised Neotropical Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera) described by Francis Walker. Revista Brasiliera de Zoologia 18, 153-157.

If you take Becker and Heppner (1996) as your starting point, Lucas, proxima is in Titya and primitiva is in Tolype, while Labedera is a synonym of Titya. Becker (2001) reinstated Labedera and moved several species to Labedera from Tolype (not from Titya). No change was made to the other species Becker and Heppner (1996) placed in Tolype. I am not aware of any other publications that affect this issue - but I may have overlooked something? Therefore proxima remains in Titya and primitiva remains in Tolype. So this is correct in terms of formal taxonomic changes, but whether it is truely taxonomically correct is another question. Many changes are in the pipeline for Neotropical Lasiocampidae and things may well change for these species too. However, I feel strongly that iNaturalist should not preempt these changes, but follow the established taxonomy.

Becker, V.O. and Heppner, J.B. 1996. 111. Lasiocampidae. In: Heppner, J.B. (ed.) Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Checklist: Part 4B Drepanoidea – Bombycoidea – Sphingoidea. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera, Gainesville, Florida, USA and Scientific Publishers, Gainsville, Florida, USA, pp. 19-27.