" 

 ::The Plant List shows F. acutatum as the accepted name and F. cymosum as the synonym, giving (Lehm.) Mansf. ex Hammer in Schultze-Motel, Verzeichnis Kultpflz. ed. 2 (1986) as the reference. It also lists F. dibotrys as a synonym.Thus the Wikipedia entry should stand here as F. acutatum.  

 ::Nevertheless, current taxonomists continue to use F. cymosum exclusively, and there is a lot of work in progress. Therefore, I make some notes here for future reference should more information become available. I am not arguing for a change at this time. 

 ::* Shultze-Motel, J. et al. 1989. Taxonomy and evolution of cultivated plants: Literature review 1987/1988 Die Kulturpflanze 37:453-496. Includes: ""Polygonaceae Fagopyrum MILL. Fagopyrum esculentum derived from F. cymosum by divergent evolution (KOVALENKO 1986)"" That is inconsistent with the same author in 1986, which is the authority cited by The Plant List. 
 ::* The International Organization for Plant Information Provisional Global Plant Checklist  does not list the species under either name.  
 ::* Kew does not list Fagopyrum at all. 
 ::* I can't access Flora of China (2003). See chapter by Li & Hong 
 ::* There is an English edition of Mansfeld & Schultze, which is the official author for F. acutatum. Mansfeld's :Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops By Peter Hanelt 
 ::* GenBank uses exclusively F. cymosum, but the deposited sequences are from Ohnishi's lab. 
 ::* The species is referred to a F. cymosum in Mei-Liang Zhou, Qian Zhang, Ya-Di Zheng, Yu Tang, Fa-Liang Li, Xue-Mei Zhu, and Ji-Rong Shao. 2015. Fagopyrum hailuogouense (Polygonaceae), One New Species from Sichuan, China. Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature, 24(2):222-224. (Note that Novon is published by MBG, as is Flora of China.) They refer to the Li & Hong (2003) paper as stating ""the perennial F. cymosum (Trevir.) Meisn., which has been synonymized to F. dibotrys (D. Don) H. Hara (Li & Hong, 2003)"" No mention of F. acutatum. 
 ::*(The taxonomic references in my initial comment are those by Ohnishi's group in the 1990s; Senthilkumaran addresses the cultivation status.) 
   "