Problematic genericometer is problematic. If you haven't noticed, it also lumps Torosaurus with Triceratops. It ignores how similar said animal actually is to it's closest relative.Let's imagine species A and B. They're separated by ~2 million years, but only have 1 difference between them.Now let's imagine species C and D. They're separated by ~500,000 years, but have 10 differences between them.By Saurian's genericometer logic, species A and B would be split, while C and D would be lumped, despite the difference between A and B being only one anatomical character while C and D differing by 10.The pair that is more similar to each other is split, while the pair that is more different from each other is lumped, at the same time. This is the problematic part.And how similar are E. annectens and E. regalis?That's a mere 3 anatomical characters difference. Heck, by some genericometers (e.g. Tschopp & Mateus' genericometer) they wouldn't even qualify as separate species if it weren't for the soft tissue differences.You could also add "wider quadratojugal" to the list.This results in a total of 4 anatomical characters. Also, in the latter study, every time E. annectens and E. regalis were placed in a morphometric biplot they form singular clusters aside from a few outliers.They're literally more similar to each other than lions and tigers are.That being said, the artist has no need to change the name to the valid genus. Nothing's stopping anyone from using "Anatotitan" or "Anatosaurus" as common names for Edmontosaurus annectens.