OOPS - You have a typo on the page: sibma vs. sigma in the taxonomy section.

It looks like the Logima vs. Psychoda debate is unsettled. It needs more investigation, but basically it seems to boil down to one author and the (mostly European) people who have followed him, vs. everyone else. It boils down to degrees of splitting or lumping, and if the cited distinctions are consistent and strong enough to warrant separate genera.

Yeah, that's what I gathered after doing quite a bit of reading.

that a discussion of Psychoda at iNaturalist puts nearly all the segregate genera (they forgot to list one) under Logima as synonyms, which may have affected a lot of placements on iNaturalist. This is an error, because Psychoda is the oldest name for the group, and if all are synonymized, they should all go under Psychoda. This seems to be misquoting a paper specifically addessing Logima in a stricter sense, and perhaps some other papers as well.

I referenced the paper under Psychoda. I don't know if what I did here is the best solution, but it seems like one that will suffice until there is more digging done, or until authors agree. I didn't dig through all of Ježek's short papers (there are a bunch).

Everything in this group appears to be Psychoda sigma = P. surcoufi. From diptera.info, the correct name should be Psychoda sigma. Both species names are also used in combination with the genus name Logima, which, as I understand, is more properly a subgenus than a genus. So I think they should all go under Psychoda sigma.

I've noticed that official species lists in New Zealand use Logima. So on iNaturalist, for example, you will see the same species being marked as Logima in NZ and Australia but in Europe as Psychoda. Perhaps Pscychoda sigma complex until this group gets properly sorted?