@eatbreakfast sorry jumped the gun in the middle of a good old fashioned taxonomy fight.
The article, by the Reefs.com, cites
This 2014 Paper. It presents the case that both
Paracentropyge and
Xiphypops be elevated to the status of genus. My (poor)understanding is that similar findings using genetic analysis were in
This 2004 Paper though the distinction it be elevated to genus level was not argued. Recent arguments against
Xiphypops being elevated that I could find was
this 2003 article evaluating body shape. The author actually goes into some of the history of
Xiphypops in the introduction. Interestingly "Smth (1955) elevated
Xiphypops to generic rank." 36 years before
Paracentropyge was ever proposed "Burgess (1991) described two further genera,
Paracentropyge with. . . . . .and
Sumireyako."
Paracentropyge being widely accepted and used today and
Xiphypops seemingly relegated to obscurity. The history of
Xiphypops has certainly been controversial, and it seems that controversy wont end soon.