So lets me get this straight,

Just like Vespula rufa and Vespula vulgaris, there were two different "versions" a Nearctic one and a Palearctic one. So Vespula intermedia here, Vespula rufa over there, Vespula alascensis here, Vespula vulgaris over there and now I'm guessing it's Vespula infernalis here and Vespula austriaca there? What about Dolichovespula adulterina!? There's a Nearctic and Palearctic version of that species also, so do they both have seperate names now as well?

Please let me know!

Thanks

I agree the nomenclature has been chaotic.
The North American form previously known as Dolichovespula adulterina has now reverted back to D.arctica.

James Carpenter of the AMNH has found structural differences between Vespula vulgaris in the Palearctic and Vespula alascensis in the Nearctic (see Carpenter & Glare (2010).

Recently the Nearctic Dolichovespula albida and the Palearctic D. norwegica have been proven to be structurally different as well (see Carpenter et al 2011b).

Regarding the seperation of the Nearctic Vespula infernalis and the Palearctic V. austriaca Kimsey & Carpenter (2012) mention finding morphological characteristics to seperate these two taxa. James Carpenter is currently working on a publication that will elaborate on the differences between the two (J.M Carpenter pers.comm) I am not sure however if he will work on papers dealing with V.intermedia and D.arctica.

I am currently studing the world wide species in the Genera Vespula and Dolichovespula and have discovered that two additional forms of D. arctica exist. (A white marked form and a pure yellow form). These forms are found througout the guide and I have posted comments on these forms) These two undescribed forms are sympatric in Western North America and Canada. D. arctica proper has a more Eastern distribution and is easily seperated from these two new forms by the metasomal patterns of the females and males.