There has been a recurring theme through the past, oh, 15 years or more of Small-Body science. The April issue (vol. 243) of Planetary and Space Science is like heavy rotation:
Kokhirova, G. I. Zhonmuhammadi, A. I. Khamroev, U. H. et al. Near-Earth asteroids of cometary origin associated with the Virginid complex. article 105869
I can’t put it any better than the authors do: “…suggesting that these asteroids have a cometary origin with high probability. In this case they might be considered as the fragments of the parent comet…”
There is a danger, of course, in trying to make associations and inferences: one’s game of connect-the-dots may turn out to be one’s Rorschach test. That game’s no joke. In this case though, the identification of parent bodies is something we’ve been at for decades now. Fragmentation, and inversely meteor parentage, isn’t something Kokhirova et al. just whipped up here. And this isn’t a paper that just came out of the blue (black?). The authors note all their precedents, both in methodology (orbit determination, and family statistics) and in the Virginid complex specifically. Connecting meteor showers to an asteroid (or more) was done for (3200) Phaethon and 2005 UD, the Taurid complex (asteroids connected to 2P/Encke dynamically), and recently others. Meanwhile comet Machholz may be ‘just’ an asteroid, that (like Phaethon) gets really close to the Sun, really hot, and is getting its rocks themselves boiling away.
One may doubt this paper, but make no doubt on probability: some number of asteroids (if not these given) are actually ex-comets.