Given the disparity of specimens which are patently different species attributed in iNat etc to this species, the disjunct distributions of their known populations (which may be a function of localised collecting effort), and importantly the lack of a comprehensive modern revision (requiring careful comparison with types), I would not be surprised if maculate-patterned species such as this prove to comprise several species. Let's hope that some competent person (or persons) will engage in the long-overdue revision of this interesting genus sooner than later. Cheers, Allen M. Sundholm.