Described by Schlechter (1912), establishing the new genus Andruris on the basis of a connective appendage lacking in Sciaphila. This is accepted by Giesen (1938). Van de Meerendonk (1984) merged Andruris with Sciaphila and, hence, calls this species Sciaphila wariana. Before, Smith (1927) as well had preferred the name Sciaphila, but revised his opinion 12 years later (Smith 1939), when he described a new Andruris buruensis (today Sciaphila arfakiana). Also, Chuma (1990), Sahashi et al. (1991), Furness et al. (2002) and Rudall (2003) use the genus name Andruris, Rübsamen-Weustenfeld (1991) argues in favour of separation of Sciaphila and Andruris, and Maas-van de Kamer and Weustenfeld (1998) include Andruris in their treatment on Triuridaceae. However, Mennes et al. (2013) considered several Sciaphila spp., two Seychellaria spp., an Andruris sp. and Sciaphila nana (which is a synonymous to Andruris nana) in a molecular phylogenetic investigation. The Seychellaria spp, Andruris sp. as well as Sciaphil nana (!) grouped together in one clade, embedded in other Sciaphila spp. Taxonomically this means either to rename Seychellaria and Andruris species to Sciaphila, or split the other clades of Sciaphila into new genera.
For some time, we kept the genus Andruris as valid in this list, due to a combination of flower characteristics described on the page on Sciaphila nana. However, since the critical differences between the genera are rather slight, and the molecular data would enforce even more micromorphological differentiation of several Sciaphila clades (if possible, at all), we adopt the view of Govaerts, Maas-van de Kamer and Maas (2016, an online checklist, search for Triuridaceae) to include Andruris in Sciaphila. At the same time, we also await a taxonomical renaming of Seychellaria spp. into Sciaphila spp. which is lacking so far.