Here I quote Regis E. Bastian from his post on Facebook...

"A resume of the reasons we transfered it: Along the history there never was a consensus where to place H. reticulatum so it was transfered around many genera many times (Coburgia, Callicore, Leopoldia, Amaryllis, Hippeastrum and Eusarcops), 2nd some morphological characters are unique among Hippeastrum: leaves and seeds for instance, 3rd considering a phylogenetic study published in 2014 by Garcia et al. it is obvious that there are inconsistencies with the placement of the species into a genus, in the trees presented in that paper when using the marker ITS nrDNA it shows itself a sister lineage of the clade formed by all other Hippeastrum species and when using the marker cpDNA it forms a clade with Eithea blumenavia, being a sister lineage of some Zephyranthes species and Sprekelia. In actual circunstances, taking in account the genera accepted in Hippeastrinae and with what is said above it is optional to place H. reticulatum in another genus, as we did, Eusarcops reticulata, or keep it in Hippeastrum. I strongly believe that if we recognize Eithea (its the very same case) we must recognize Eusarcops as well as it is not possible to merge both into one genus. So basically this is what we explain in details in this paper, also some historical data is given and original illustrations, etc."

Interesting! I always thought that "Hippeastrum" reticulatum and Eithea resemble each other more, especially the flowers, than either resembles other Hippeastrum.

Thank you for the notification! This news sound interesting but "inconvenient" - but the genetic make up of a species has the saying, it is the actual template at the classification.

Join this Facebook Group....Planet Botanical Hippeastrum and learn from the real experts on Hippeastrum.