Dear Wim,

I do not understand exactly what is the problem. However, if you wish to describe and name a hybrid combination involving another subspecies of Elymus farctus (or. E. repens), you describe it as a nothosubspecies of Elymus x laxus, i.e., E. x laxus nothosubspecies nonscripta. Doing this, you establish an autonym, i.e. E. x laxus nothosubspecies laxus, which should be also explicitly named in the protologue of nothosubspecies B. Sometimes, one or more available names may already exist at the species level (some people consider the subspecies as species); in this case, you may combine it to a nothosubspecies. Unfortunately, this may be particularly difficult within Elymus because of the huge number of names in this and related genera.

There is a good example in the genus Asplenium, including subspecies of Asplenium trichomanes with different ploidy levels:

Asplenium ×alternifolium Wulfen (A. septentrionale × A. trichomanes)

— nothosubsp. alternifolium (A. septentrionale × A. trichomanes subsp. trichomanes)

— nothosubsp. heufleri (Reichardt) Aizpuruet al. (A. septentrionale × A. trichomanes subsp. quadrivalens; A. ×baumgartneri)

Here, three names are involved, all once published as nothospecies or just species, of which the latter two refer to the same taxonomic entity, including both A. septentrionale and the widespread A. trichomanes subsp. quadrivalens (of course, this had to be established only recently):

Asplenium ×alternifolium Wulfen, 1781

Asplenium x heufleri Reichardt, 1859

Asplenium x baumgartneri Dörfl., 1894

Publishing Asplenium x alternifolium nothosubsp. heufleri in 1985, Aizpuru, Catalán & Salvo created A. x alternifolium nothosubsp. alternifolium.

Best

Art. H.5.2 has long been considered to be problematic, because it appeared to imply that, say, the name Elymus ×laxus was not to be used for hybrids with the formula E. farctus subsp. boreoatlanticus (Simonet & Guin.) Melderis × E. repens (L.) Gould; however, this is so if, and only if, there is already an available nothospecies name for the formula E. farctus × E. repens. As Danihelka correctly explains, since this was not the case then, the name Elymus ×laxus was correct for the interspecific hybrids with the parental formula E. farctus × E. repens, whereas for E. farctus subsp. boreoatlanticus (Simonet & Guin.) Melderis × E. repens (L.) Gould the correct name is Elymus ×laxus nothosubsp. laxus (an autonym).

The Code tried to cover this confusing situation by (a) adding Art. H.5.Note 2 with the two eamples following it; and (b) by making it explicit that contravention to Art. H.5.2 does not result in illegitimacy (Art. 52.Note 4 and Ex. 19).

Your question shows that these clarificatory measures have not been entirely successful, and future editorial committees might be well advised to look for a less confusing wording. They will no doubt be pleased to receive your suggestions.

Season's greetings, Werner

Thank you, Werner and Jiří, for your elaborate answers.

Jiří, I am aware that once there are two or more nothosubspecies, their ranks and naming become a logical construction like you describe in your answers. My feeling at loss stems from the situation where nothospecies names are published involving only one of the possible subspecies-combinations. This happens with Asplenium hybrids after ca. 1950 when cytological observations came to play a dominant role in defining subspecies.

Werner, the last paragraph of your answer really tells it all... Thank you.

all the best,

Wim