Flag for Taxon: Platycheirus albimanus Group (Section Platycheirus albimanus)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ophrys | upupa-epops | Platycheirus albimanus Group (Section Platycheirus albimanus) |
It is a false complex, covering species with no possible confusion. Just creates its own confusion when entering P. albimanus proper. Taxonomically unnecessary. |
Jul. 6, 2020 18:23:13 +0000 | matthewvosper |
Cmplx albimanus made ‘Section’ ILO ‘Species Grp’ + defined sensu Skevington. For consistency other Nearctic + Palearctic Groups/Complexes implemented under subgeneric framework of Mengual 2020 except ‘Cmplx albimanus’ in conflicting ‘white spots’ sense |
Comments
Thanks for that.
In Britain's Hoverflies by Ball and Morris 2015, Platycheirus are referred to with albimanus group (4 species), manicatus group (3 species), peltatus group (3 species), scutatus group (3 species) and clypeatus group (10 species). Then there is the old Pyrophaena subgenus.
This is one of those issues that are always going to be tricky, as the groupings will vary from country to country. I am not too worried about it as what you have done is based on that literature, so that is good.
However, for the UK what I see happening is that people are using Platycheirus albimanus 'complex' simply because it appears first above Platycheirus albimanus ss, which is usually what they have. Not a great problem, but it is introducing unnecessary vagueness into the data...maybe it could just be worked so that the ss appears first.
And then for the UK I do think it would be useful to have an option for the scutatus group. P. scutatus, P. aureolateralis and P. splendidus listed separately, but then P. scutatus group as an option, because females cannot be separated in those three currently. As it is, scutatus females are appearing as ss, which is too much confidence entering the data.
As I say, thanks for your time in looking at my flag. Small things, but would be useful.
Ian
For the first issue, that is a general problem with all species complexes that has been discussed on the forum:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/troubleshooting-species-complexes/13252
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/adjust-how-species-complexes-are-displayed/12777
I don't know if there's any progress on that.
For the second issue, there seems to be a difference in the level the groups are being defined at. Are the Ball and Morris groups monophyletic clades or just visually similar species?
The Skevington et al. albimanus group includes P. albimanus, clypeatus, and scutatus. If all of the species in those groups are in the same clade, then one solution would be to have those groups as species complexes within the albimanus species group (if/when iNat enables species groups as an option). In the meantime, I think it is possible to have a complex within a complex, but I don't know how accepted that would be.
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/create-a-new-taxon-rank-for-inaturalist-the-species-group/14543
It's not an easy one. Thank you for your detailed reply. To be honest, I am mainly coming from the angle of wanting UK observers to get the same options here as they would somewhere like iRecord and on the UK facebook hoverfly site. Like it or not, iNat is not at all popular with many invertebrate recording schemes in the UK, and very unpopular with the team i/c hoverfly recording (!), but I think it definitely has its place in encouraging a new cohort of younger recorders. However, I think it would help it to have the same species/species groups readily accessible for IDs if people are to be won over to it. albimanus and scutatus agg are two that get recorded a lot here, so it would be handy to have ease and accuracy of reference to them for UK users.
As I say, thanks for your time and I am happy to have raised it, but also happy to move on now...I dare say you have bigger issues to sort out!
Ian
Do you know of any papers that delineate those groups? I'm thinking I don't mind having a species complex within a "species complex", but having two different albimanus complexes within each other would definitely be an issue.
I just noticed that BugGuide has Platycheirus separated into subgenera, and iNat follows BugGuide so I am going to create those subgenera. They are also listed here, but I'm not sure where to find a complete list of species that are in each one: https://brill.com/view/journals/ctoz/89/2/article-p210_210.xml#R000026%20R000088%20R000111
Hi @upupa-epops !
Wonder if I might revive this conversation. We have a bridge now to another UK platform where matches in the taxonomy will have notable impact, so wondering if it's worth discussing further.
With regard to your question about papers which delineate the groups @ophrys mentions :-
The paper you link to originally mentions the splits for P.peltatus group and P.manicatus group which I can anyhow place as complexes without conflict with the P.albimanus concept discussed here, so will implement.
The same paper also talks of the P.scutatus complex. On pg. 11
"Platycheirus scutatus is known to be a species complex composed of at least five species (P. scutatus, P. speighti, P. splendidus, P. aurolateralis, and P. atlasi) in the Palaearctic region (Doczkal et al. 2002)"
https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4082.1.1/4574
A description and key to the P.clypeatus group can be found in Dipterists Digest (First Series) Vol. 5, (Speight, M.C.D. & Goeldlin de Tiefenau, P. (1990)) - it is downloadable here: https://dipterists.org.uk/digest
There is a description of the Palearctic P.albimanus group here - I have requested the paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316505699_New_material_of_Central_Palaearctic_Platycheirus_Diptera_Syrphidae_with_description_of_three_new_species
With regard to options, can you physically create a complex within a complex? (As it's the same rank wouldn't that be impossible or cause problems?). Based on the connected forum discussion it sounds as if some are also suggesting using Section in place of Species group at present as an alternative (not endorsing that per se, as it seems contentious ... but just raising as another option)
But also I wonder how important is the use of this coarser rank to N.American users?
It appears given present distribution of records within complex at least that the impact of this is much more significant for European users than N.American or other continents. There are 629 records total at this complex rank or lower of which, 534 are European. There are 55 records listed at the level of the existing complex, of which only 5 are in N.America. Of the remaining ones which are all in Europe, 28 are in UK. I am not sure how @ophrys and others have been logging P.scutatus complex observations at present though - perhaps many of these remain at genus to avoid confusion?
Of the ones listed beneath P.albimanus complex in N.America - most(all?) seem to be listed at species level as P.quadratus. Of the 5 which aren´t, would some even be placed at a lower level if we had finer complexes in play?
In summary, I wonder if perhaps N.American users might be ok if we abandon the coarser species group of P.albimanus in favour of finer complexes for time being ( with the hope the coarser species group can be implemented in addition down the line ).
Note, I try to avoid identifying hoverflies myself too much....so my only interest here is in compatability with UK taxonomy.
But perhaps other hoverfly identifiers would also have input/wisdom here :
@gerrit_oehm @matthewvosper @flo-dycob @edanko @treegrow @johnklymko
My advice would be to avoid anything destructive. If the species groups (presumably all monophyletic) from Skevington et al have already been entered, we should keep them. If there are problems with nested complexes within species groups, then it sounds like we have to use something like a "section." This problem has been dragging on for years and if the iNat team is going to resist completely resolving taxon rank problems then we just have to address that by being creative I suppose.
"wanting UK observers to get the same options here as they would somewhere like iRecord and on the UK facebook hoverfly site" -- If there are FEWER options on iNat than in the UK then I agree that'd be a problem. To the extent that it might come up, I think it's almost absurd to complain that there are MORE options on iNat than in the UK; iNat caters to international observations and obviously there is more diversity globally than nationally.
.... let's try to come up with a solution that let's everyone have the species group names they're used to?
Thanks for your input @edanko !
Not sure what you mean by "MORE" options?
There are less options on iNat at the moment than are typically used in UK :
At present, we have a single P.albimanus species group entered as a single complex.
Under this current umbrella it limits us from access to the subgroups P.clypeatus, P.scutatus and P.albimanus which we would usually divide in UK. So we have 1 option on iNat where we would divide in 3 in UK.
So yes, there are fewer options on iNat than in UK, that´s the issue.
(Note I see this as a European issue though anyhow, not just UK - wrt my comment I just meant current UK impact is my main impetus....but I´d argue this appears to have broader implication for us across Europe than it appears to across N.America)
Can we divide into 3 then on iNat? Use UK groups as complexes? I'd recommend following finer classification if it's supported in literature, assuming we'll still know what to do with the NA species? Or just elevate NA group to section or something? this gets complicated... I'd suggest leaving this for specialists on Platycheirus because they'll know what to do?
Actually, yes.... having read the main paper detailing Nearctic Platycheirus which @upupa-epops linked to in more detail now, I´m inclined to agree, perhaps best left as is or for specialists to decide.
Maybe it´s helpful for folks if I pull out the relevant parts for future reference though :
from
https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4082.1.1/4574
THE PAST
Pg 6.
"In his 1990 revision of Nearctic Platycheirus, Vockeroth did not erect formal subgenera, but instead divided the genus into five species groups: albimanus group, ambiguus group, granditarsis group, stegnus group, and concinnus group. He divided two of these groups, albimanus and stegnus, into subgroups. Each species group is named for the first described species in the group, although some of these species are Palaearctic in distribution (Vockeroth 1990). The Platycheirus albimanus species group is of particular interest, as it contains 42 of the 75 Nearctic species of Platycheirus. The albimanus species group contains all Platycheirus with broadened and flattened fore tibiae and/or tarsi, excluding Platycheirus granditarsis (Forster), and was divided by (Vockeroth 1990) into six subgroups: the manicatus, peltatus, clypeatus, albimanus, nodosus, and scambus subgroups. These groups were all considered to be “likely monophyletic”, but were never tested through a detailed phylogenetic analysis."
THE PRESENT
The research goes on to subject these groups to combined morphological/molecular phylogenetic analyses.
The results raise manicatus and peltatus to equivalent rank to albimanus (species group) - so these present no problem with regard to this flag.
This leaves the subgroups scutatus, clypeatus, nodosus, scambus and albimanus still under the original species group of albimanus.
But reading deeper, whilst it does acknowledge the subgroup scutatus as being a complex and monophyletic (pg.11).
It also says subgroups clypeatus and albimanus are NOT monophyletic (pg.10)
So, as I understand it, if we adhere to monophyletic groups only, then within current iNat taxonomy this only gives us the options of
Section albimanus with Complex scutatus beneath it
Complex albimanus with no finer ranks (leaving it as is)
I’m not sure either of these resolve the issue from UK point of view particularly well anyhow... so perhaps as you say @edanko this just doesn’t make sense in global context...
But yes, in any case, maybe not for me to debate, well beyond the scope of my knowledge!
Curious if specialists have more to say on it though and how these groups are delineated across the rest of Europe at present.
I might reach out to Roger Morris so he is aware of the reason here for limiting UK records.
But yes, as I saw it before @edanko, we could have either just raised this to section and implemented albimanus, scutatus and clypeatus as complexes...
....or turned this into a complex and redetermined the 5 N.American records (I imagined the other 50 European records are actually intended to refer to the subgroup albimanus, but I guess one can´t assume that in any case ).
Just trying to recall the situation after nearly a year... is this the taxonomy that we're trying to fit onto iNaturalist?
Genus Platycheirus
-- Subgenus Platycheirus
---- Species group P. albimanus
------ Complex P. albimanus
------ Complex P. scutatus
------ Complex P. clypeatus
Bolded taxa exist on iNat currently, except with species group = "complex" (the taxon this flag is on). The finer species groups/complexes exist on the UK platform?
@ximo_mengual @jhskevington @adyoung are authors of papers mentioned above who are also on iNaturalist. Do you guys have any suggestions about splitting up this group?
Yes, that was my intention in reviving this.
Now not so sure! :)
The finer species groups/complexes continue to be in common usage on the Facebook groups / by the national scheme from what @ophrys says. It is also the delineation described in the UK field guide by Roger Morris. (although that was published in 2015 and the main paper being referenced here is from 2016)
@billdean might also have thoughts about resolving American/European taxonomy differences here?
I always followed Alan E. Stubbs and Steven Falk. They have considered clypeatus group outside of albimanus group. Platycheirus peltatus and scutatus have been found to be more than one species. I bow to others on this discussion.
@adyoung may have some imput. I don`t think everybody will be happy but DNA studies must have the final vote.
Thanks for tagging me into this @sbushes – I’ve had some fun! (perhaps too much) … apologies for such an essay… (I've separated the conclusion into a separate post.)
At the moment the iNat taxonomy of Platycheirus seems to be in a bit of a messy sort of transition state toward acceptance of Mengual’s 2020 revision – so it definitely does need to be worked on. Young, Marshall and Skevington (YMS) previously divided the genus into species groups developing Vockeroth’s previous arrangements– these are repeated in Skevington’s NW North American field guide, and some of them are created in iNat (including the current albimanus arrangement), so they are certainly of practical ID value, and mostly monophyletic (although they may be doubts about a couple, but that’s not for us to sort out).
It’s always going to be tough where there are particular national ways of grouping things but from my (entirely amateur) delving into the literature on this clypeatus and scutatus complexes seem to be very widely recognised, and they are nested within the broadly defined albimanus group. (I kind of thought that ‘monophyletic’ in iNat’s guidance on complexes just meant ‘having the same parent taxon’ rather than demanding phylogenetic testing to have been done and confirmed… but perhaps I’m wrong?). However… the narrower British/European albimanus concept (white spots) comes through the literature like a blancmange through a fan… four species in three quite different places! This is not too surprising given the diversity of the 4 species’ male foreleg morphology, as this is the main feature used to divide the genus.
If we wanted to go down the route of implementing Mengual 2020 while retaining the ‘species groups’ of YMS and the common complexes (minus ‘white spots’ albimanus), the challenge would be ensuring that as many as possible of the right species are grafted in the right places – not just the British ones for example; so I’ve had a play, I’ll post a spreadsheet in a second with my best effort, but let me explain it first…
The column headings show the species groups from YMS and, above them, how I understand they are treated by @ximo_mengual. I started with the North American ones because YMS is a complete revision of the North American species, and I don’t think such a thing exists for Europe. There are four sets of lists: 1) the Nearctic species from YMS that are not Holarctic 2) The Holarctic species (from comparing YMS with PESI portal Europe checklist and any other papers) 3) Exclusively Old World Species from various sources. 4) Tuberculanostoma and Eocheilosia species from Systema Dipterorum.
I have indicated which species in the albimanus group I know to be in either the scutatus or clypeatus ‘complexes’.
Unfortunately I don’t have access to the best looking source for the clypeatus group (I have requested it) – it should cover the entire gamut of Palearctic species judging by the title. So there may be more to add to this complex.
The only clear contradiction I’ve found is that Barkalov puts woodi in Subgenus Pachysphyria, but YMS put it in Subgenus Platycheirus, pictipes group.
The only two European species I can’t place at all are muelleri and laskai - from what I can tell they should be in the albimanus group – I’ve omitted them.
Two notable synonyms I’ve come across (both in YMS), holarcticus = naso and carinatus = chilosia.
For what it’s worth, the Barkalov Russia Checklist contains a shedload of additional Asian species in the Subgenus Platycheirus – He doesn’t divide them into the species groups though.
EDIT: OK so apparently I can't embed it here - I'll embed it in my journal instead...
EDIT: Here it is https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/matthewvosper/59308-thoughts-on-the-inat-taxonomy-of-platycheirus
With that sort of information it should be possible to execute the following if desirable:
Genus Platycheirus
.....Subgenus Carposcalis (=stegnus group)
.....Subgenus Pachysphyria (=ambiguus group)
.....Subgenus Platycheirus
.......... ‘Group’ manicatus
.......... ‘Group’ peltatus
.......... ‘Group’ albimanus
...............Complex scutatus
...............Complex clypeatus
.......... ‘Group’ pictipes
.......... ‘Group’ chilosia
.....Subgenus Tuberculanostoma
Genus Pyrophaena
Genus Eocheilosia
From a UK point of view this would mean that the following groups from Ball and Morris would be identifiable: scutatus, clypeatus, peltatus, Pyrophaena (as a Genus rather than Subgenus- already the case in iNat), and manicatus (but this includes discimanus and sticticus). So that would be great – 4 out of 5 ain’t bad.
(If you weren’t sure between clypeatus and scutatus complexes for some reason you could identify as albimanus group – but how confusing is that!?)
A fly in the Ball and Morris albimanus group would have to be identified as Genus Platycheirus, unless ambiguus can be ruled out, in which case Subgenus Platycheirus. If albimanus itself can also be ruled out then it’s manicatus group. That absolutely sucks, but with ambiguus now having its own subgenus I don’t see how it can finally be avoided.
Wow thanks for the effort!
I'd propose that we change the rank of this taxon from Complex to Section, and then create new Complexes below it for the UK groups. It seems like that would cause the least disruption while also accomodating for that tree. Does that work for everyone?
Hopefully eventually we can change it from Section to Species group.
Sounds good.
I already initiated manicatus and peltatus as complexes a few days ago. Do you propose then to raise/form all 5 species groups as sections?
We should have whichever groups people will use, and yeah I think they should all be the same rank for consistency.
I think that makes sense.
Thank you for working this out Matthewvosper!
Hi guys,
Matthew did a very good job, so I wanted to point out a couple of small things.
A species complex is a category that usually applies to species hard to distinguish or virtually impossible to tell apart. This term is valid for certain species where females cannot be identified (never for males).
The species groups are vaguely defined as no one has taken care to find synapomorphies to justify these groupings. Some are valid, some other not but still in use. Another problem with the species groups is that most published literature are regional (Europe, northern Europe, this or that region), so only the species of that particular group occurring in the studied area are listed. It is difficult to list all valid species names ever published into these groups.
All these species groups and complexes are under Platycheirus sensu stricto.
Cheers, Ximo
We understand that these are not true "complexes" but iNaturalist forces us to call them complexes because of a site structural limitation. Thanks, Ximo!
Hmm iNaturalist does prefer that if new ranks are added then all their descendants be included globally, but this seems like a grey area where the group is filled for one area but undefined for the rest of the world. In this situation I don't think having the groups will result in accidental disagreeing IDs like the example in the curator guide so it should be fine.
Although there's also this: "As a rule of thumb, not including additional nodes in iNaturalist is preferable to including but only partially curating additional nodes as in the middle tree above. Please consider before introducing additional nodes: (1) are there global references that will enable curators to properly determine whether other taxa are siblings or descendants of the node? ..."
In this case the reason that there's no such global reference is that the group simply hasn't been well-studied taxonomically so I think it's okay?
Thanks for the contribution @ximo_mengual, it is reassuring to hear from one of the authors! And thank you for the additional resource on the ambiguus group (http://www.entomologi.no/journals/nje/2014-1/pdf/nje-vol61-no1-nielsen.pdf) - I have added the additional species to the spreadsheet, which now covers nearly 150 species. I also regard that paper as siding against Barkalov in the confusion over P woodi (by not mentioning it in ambiguus), and I have removed it from the ambiguus group.
It seems to me that 'Complex' is being used in a slightly broader sense on iNat (c.f. the Volucella bombylans complex), and I think in general that is not unhelpful. I think these 'groups/sections' and 'complexes' would certainly pass the 'usefulness' criterion - in the UK for example they marry up with groups used by the recording scheme (apart from albimanus of course). I think we have found fairly comprehensive sources now for ambiguus and clypeatus (Though actually I haven't received this yet), and the 5 scutatus are mentioned in the Skevington Nearctic paper, including the solely Palearctic species like atlasi from Morocco so that would also seem to be quite set. It does bother me on a picky level that some N American species may fall within the definitions of these latter two, but how do we know? - on the other hand, given that these two groups are clearly not in use in North America that isn't a practical problem. I agree that I can't see how the 'false disagreement' scenario arises.
The only problem is the possibility that people in North America select complex scutatus or clypeatus when they mean the species as both species are holarctic - but to be frank there are currently no Nearctic iNat observations of either of them, so that is a really negligible cost. And it is a cost we accept in other complexes where there is a greater impact.
EDIT: FYI I've gone through the remainder of Barkalov's Platycheirus (Platycheirus) species and assigned those I've been able to, and updated the spreadsheet accordingly. (Despite what I've said above, there is another for the scutatus complex!)
I've now been through the names on iNat and Systema Dipterorum, and got the number of species placed on the spreadsheet to 175. There are a further 8 that I can place in the Subgenus Platycheirus but not in a group. There are a further 5 that I have not been able to place anywhere. So the total considered is 188. I have added the details in comments under the journal post with the spreadsheet. It is possible that a couple of the species in the albimanus group that are not assigned to a complex, should be (Particularly I wonder if macroantennae should be in the clypeatus complex.
I have also included in those comments some synonyms and fossils among the iNat names, and other names.
I suppose the question is... is this 'global' enough to be worth implementing for the benefit of being able to produce finer levels of ID, and being able to export those to e.g. the UK recording schemes which use them. I believe so. The species not included are presumably very obscure if I can't even find their names anywhere... There may be some misplacements which may or may not be highlighted later on and can be corrected, but I do not think that's a terrible problem.
Or is there a better way?
That's great! I agree, it sounds like it's worth doing.
Sounds good. There are always going to be a few "incertae sedis" species. As long as we've done our best as you certainly have then I think we're all set.
Would we then institute the 'group' taxon as 'section'? And are the complexes 'complexes' or 'subsections'? (Clypeatus is quite big!)
I'd rather not be the person to establish the groups, but if and when they are implemented I'm happy to fill them!
I just tested changing the 3 present species groups from complex to section, it seems to work fine. I'll add the complexes under group/section albimanus as well.
And it looks like the pictipes and chilosia groups need to be added as well?
Okay I think they're all created now.
So to clarify the response to the original flag request...
In Britain's Hoverflies by Ball and Morris 2015, Platycheirus are referred to with albimanus group (4 species), ...
A fly in the Ball and Morris albimanus group would have to be identified as Genus Platycheirus, unless ambiguus can be ruled out, in which case Subgenus Platycheirus. If albimanus itself can also be ruled out then it’s manicatus group. That absolutely sucks, but with ambiguus now having its own subgenus I don’t see how it can finally be avoided.
So we will not have a finer UK albimanus complex below the broader NA albimanus section?
Yes. The Genus Eocheilosia also needs to be created... though perhaps we should consult New Zealand first... @stephen_thorpe @steve_kerr This flag was originally about trying to implement some subgroups of the Genus Platycheirus that are of use in Europe, and it has kind of led to trying to sort out the infrageneric taxonomy of iNat Platycheirus more broadly in line with the recent review by Mengual (2020). In this review the New Zealand species are raised to a separate Genus Eocheilosia. We could ensure that Platycheirus remains as a strikethrough synonym so that it will not cause problems for people searching. Does this cause you any issues? (the alternative would probably be to leave them grafted directly to the Genus, or have a Subgenus Eocheilosia as in some sources - but then we would be diverging from Mengual.
Yes also to the comment about the British albimanus complex. Which is actually the original subject of this flag!! In my view, it can't be done in a way that is consistent with broader (and more monophyletic) international approaches :(
One other thing that needs to be done is to merge the current Genus Tuberculanostoma into Platycheirus (Tuberculanostoma), which of course requires name changes for its members.
Right. Deep breath. Here we go. I'll start with the albimanus group including clypeatus and scutatus. If anyone else wants to move species, please mention it here so we don't bump into each other!
EDIT: Scutatus complex complete
EDIT: Clypeatus complex complete
EDIT: Albimanus section complete
I'll get Tuberculanostoma.
Going for the manicatus group next
EDIT: Done
I have no problem with erecting a new genus level category for Eocheilosia. @stephen_thorpe ?
Thank you @steve_kerr
Pictipes time
EDIT: Section pictipes complete
Chilosia next
EDIT: Section chilosia complete
Onto peltatus - that is the last Subgenus Platycheirus group.
EDIT Section peltatus done and I've tidied up a couple of species that were in Subgenus Platycheirus and shouldn't have been. I've also done the synonymy holarcticus=>naso.
Tomorrow I will try to address the species that are in Subgenus Platycheirus but not in any Group.
I've added a couple directly to the Subgenus Platycheirus, so that Subgenus should now be 'complete'. I've not dealt with the two former Pseudoplatycheirus or Tuberculanostoma solinaria
I'm going to take on subgenus Carposcalis. If anyone else fancies doing Pachysphyria (i.e. the ambiguus group) that would be great. There's already a taker for Tuberculanostoma. Then there's Eocheilosia.
EDIT Carposcalis done
Going for ambiguus/Pachyshyria now
EDIT: Done
I'll try to sort the rest out over the course of the day in breaks. @upupa-epops thanks for sorting the Tuberculanostoma merge.
I think everything is done! I shall resolve the flag, if anyone disagrees just say.
Now... There are 5677 observations in Platycheirus at the moment - of which 4530 are at Genus level...
Awesome! Thanks so much for your work @matthewvosper.
@ophrys regarding your request here and in the other flag (https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/496289)
I made this "complex" referencing the Field Guide to Flower Flies of Northeastern North America by Skevington et al. and this paper: https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4082.1.1 (see original discussion https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/490355#activity_comment_4639306)
In northeastern North America the clade includes 20 species that are difficult to separate from each other. It would be more accurate to call it a "species group", but iNaturalist doesn't have that option.
Is P. scutatus and the other 2 species you mentioned in a clade within the albimanus species group? Is that complex recognized in the literature?