this is interesting, but I was confused over this line in the article - "They, too, say the western population should be recognized as a full species called
Lophorina neidda inopinata." - which nomenclaturally does not make much sense.
The paper about the splits is available online only as an abstract, so I had a little look around and found a Birdforum thread discussing it (link below).
It looks like there is a good case for splitting, but it is actually three species not two which
L. superba is proposed as being split into (the two new ones being
L. neidda and
L. minor). And the trinomial that the Macauley Library article mistakenly refers to as "a full species" is a new subspecies (i.e. the previous subspecies
neidda is split as a full species, and then further split into two subspecies, which is where the article's author got confused).
See the very interesting Birdforum discussion here, from post #4:
Birds of paradise - BirdForum