The above is largely correct, but requires some fixing...and then I will add to the discussion:
The lowland Chinese species are H.fudingensis, H.orientalis, and H.orphicus.
The name Pingia granulosa is based on juvenile specimens of Pachytriton granulosus, so neither "Pingia" nor "granulosa" can be used for fire-bellied newts. The original illustration of Pingia was obviously a Pachytriton, and the so-called rediscovered animals have rather definitively been shown to be the same [although the study actually used animals now named Pachytriton feii, which is very similar].
Among the factors involved in the splitting of Hypselotriton from Cynops, is an uncertainty that the two groups are actually related to one another. Some evidence indicates that the Japanese species are closer to Paramesotriton than to the Chinese species. Other evidence combines Cynops and Hypselotriton, but the evidence isn't strong. Since scientific names are intended to reflect biological relationships, it makes more sense to have different names for groups which may or may not be related, than to combine them into a single name which falsely suggests a close relationship. IE, if both are real groups, theres nothing wrong with separate names. If they also form a single group together, either two or one name will do. The only unacceptable option is to use one name for two unrelated groups, which means splitting is overall the safest choice. A division into three genera, based on physical features, was suggested but not actually proposed, several decades ago. The reason for the split is actually identical to the reason for splitting Laotriton from Paramesotriton, which had also been suggested earlier, and formally proposed by Dubois and Raffaelli.
The name Hypselotriton was originally coined for C.wolterstorffi alone, based in part on its neotenic characters. This is the oldest name used only for any newt related to C.wolterstorffi, and thus is the name which must be used if needed. Which means the genus isn't defined in the original manner, although it is still based on the same original species and expanded to include others. Dubois and Raffaelli formally made the change in their 2008 paper revising Salamandridae, and the change has also been adopted in Frosts's Amphibian Species of the World. I started using Hypselotriton many years ago, and it was included in my master list of salamanders [which I sent Jean long ago].
This was discussed elsewhere in these threads, though you'd have to search for posts containing those names. I don't believe I brought it up in a separate thread, unless it was a thread on Pachytriton.
thank you!