I'll admit that a lot of the molecular data goes right over my head right now so I might be missing something important, but I thought most of allegheniensis made sense (though not the spiloides splits). The split around the mississipi made the most sense to me anyway. I'm just curious what your thoughts are. My opinion is that, biologically and phylogenetically, many (maybe most) subspecies are just populations of a given species (and some groups are different enough to be separate species), while ecologically and conservationally they really should be subspecies (or full species) to avoid confusion.
I've requested this new corn paper so I'm not about to comment on it until I read it.