Blake (2000) treated Leodamas as a full genus because of its heavy thoracic neuropodial spines, which differ from the narrow spines of Scoloplos. A morphology-based cladistic analysis indicated this was justified, however molecular support is not yet tested. Blake (2017) extended the number of species in Leodamas with several new combinations and three new species. His diagnosis of Scoloplos versus Leodamas hinges on relatively minor differences. These are that in
Scoloplos thoracic neurochaetae include blunt, inconspicuous uncini, few in number, not in distinct rows; abdominal neuropodia with embedded, non-projecting acicula, and in
Leodamas the thoracic neuropodial uncini are large, conspicuous, arranged in one to many distinct vertical rows, with accompanying capillaries few; abdominal neuropodia with projecting aciculae, either thin and inconspicuous or large. The problem is these are somewhat subjective gradational differences with some species (eg Scoloplos cylindrifer) not clearly belonging to either genus. Subsequently Zhadan (2020: 454) did not accept Blake's transfer of several Scoloplos (Blake's group B) to Leodamas in part because Scoloplos remained heterogeneous, and molecular support was lacking for the morphological differences noted by Blake. See Scoloplos (Leodamas) for a number of species not yet assigned to either genus.