Hello -- I was reviewing some of my coins and it took me about 10 minutes to find my Portuguese Guinea coins. They are now loaded as Guinea-Bissau however, that country didn't come into existence until 1973-1974. My coins pre-date this by 30 to 40 years. Not sure how this error was made.
It is not uncommon for some colonial issues to be listed alongside their post-independence counterparts; e.g. Portuguese colonial coins from Angola, Mozambique, Macau, Cabo Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe. The only Portuguese colony I know that is divided into two issuers (colonial and independent) is Timor-Leste.
Whether Numista should consider unifying colonial + post colonial issuers, or separating colonial issues from post-independence ones is a matter up for debate. I believe at the moment colonies with the same name as their post-independence entity (e.g. Hong Kong) are the ones that are united as one issuer, while ones that are markedly different (e.g. British Honduras v.s. Belize) are not united.
I wholeheartedly agree with Cass. We collect coins of the countries as they were and placing, for example, Southern Rhodesia with Zimbabwe will be completely wrong. However if the name is retained then they can be together even though some catalogs separate, for example, British India and Republic.