1/ If we maintain O. virescens as a full species, we should choose if :

1.1. O. araneola/O. litigiosa follows back in synonymy,
1.2. or to be still considered as a subspecies of sphegodes,
1.3. or to be elevated also at species rank ?
2/ If we downgrade O. virescens as a subspecies of sphegodes, it should be named O. sphegodes subsp. riojana, at least provisionally...

@curcu34 @didierbas @tkoffel @chacled @fabien_anthelme @jujurenoult @mireille31 @pdubois : as the main observers of O. virescens, what is your choice ?
@ wolfgangb @bernardoparri @fabienpiednoir @mercantour : as the main identifiers of O. virescens, what is your choice ?

Thanks to all,
Errol.

@wolfgangb

There is another possibility. Do not upgrade O virescens but O. araneola as main species. For this we could follow the Kreutz 2004/2007's scheme :
Ophrys araneola subsp. argentaria (Devillers-Tersch. & Devillers) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. ausonia (Devillers, Devillers-Tersch. & P.Delforge) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. illyrica (S.Hertel & K.Hertel) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. incantata (Devillers & Devillers-Tersch.) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. quadriloba (Rchb.f.) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. tommasinii (Vis.) Kreutz
Ophrys araneola subsp. virescens (Gren.) Kreutz
The only problem is nomenclatural, because O. araneola Rchb (1831), based on the herbarium sheet and the living plants on the type locality (Bew, Switzerland), is more and more considered as a minor form of O. aranifera/sphegodes, and not a species with a small labellum, like O litigiosa Camus (1890), traditionnally considered as a posterior synonym.
And if we consider Ophrys virescens Philippe (1859, not O. aranifera var. virescens Gren., 1859 also) as a legitimate name, it should be the priority name. But O. tommasinii Vis. (1851) is another more priority name on O. virescens. And both under these two names, none of these taxa had been combined...
Nevertheless, this Kreutz's araneola scheme could solve the most part of the problem, at least at iNat level.
What do you think about ?

unfortunately yes (but the name O. litigiosa is to be preferred for other uses than iNat !)

I am not able to pronounce !
Sorry.

I lack the knowledge about this group, despite I encountered some members.
As a general point of view, splitting (ie. making species from subsp. or vars.) should require crossings and/or genetic assessment. Jordan tried (deeply!) and ... failed.
In cases of reticulated evolution where gene-flows still occurs it's just misleading.
Practically, I think that having a "look-like" species plus subspecies would allow IDs at species level, even by unexperimented botanists; these IDs could be improved to subspecies level by specialists (probably with debates in this case !).
On the other hand, the creation of a species for each "form" would quickly generate a lot of "Ohprys sp." IDs due to the impossibilty to separate these forms for an untrained generalist.
At least a "sensu-lato" group should encompass all these species.
In My Humble Opinion,
Sylvain

Draft swap proposed here : https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/102477
Is it ok for everybody ?

No objection :-)