This is both a yes-and-no situation that doesn't have a good solution. Taxonomy for the genus Physalia is generally a nightmare, and nothing's really accurate. Very old sources separated P. physalis and P. utriculosus. Old but less-old sources combined the genus into a single species, frankly as lazy taxonomy. Less obsolete sources suggest there is definitive evidence of more than one species. However, the actual research necessary to separate and describe these species remains incomplete. So… even if P. utriculosus should be considered to be valid, there isn't enough research into whether it would be defined in the sense of those very old sources, if it would be more broadly defined, or if it would be more narrowly defined. This is more generally summarized in the other Jon's comment here.

It's not an optimum situation by any means, as a future taxonomic split may or may not separate well by geography and thus may require a ton of re-identifying. While there may be reason to propose an explicit deviation from WoRMS, I just don't think the literature is to the point that it would be a stable separation.

See other flags:
• https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/212597
• https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/211352

@tonyrebelo @jonathan142 Thanks for the explanation guys.