sacrevert
commented
6 years ago This all seems reasonable to me -- good work! Hopefully anyone who has spent the time working out which subspecies was involved in the cross would probably also notice and use one of the three hostiana x viridula subspecies entries in MapMate. (And also will hopefully probably notice at some point if their record of that particular cross is subsumed into the broader hybrid concept in the DDb.)
At present the MapMate entity 'x31381zj' 'Carex x fulva' resolves to brc concept 2609. MapMate (I think wrongly) specifies 'hostiana x lepidocarpa' in the vernacular name field for this entry.
BRC treats this as "Carex hostiana x viridula (C. x fulva)" In the DDb the equivalent is "Carex hostiana x viridula s.l."
This usage of the 'fulva' epithet matches the treatment in Stace 2 but is inconsistent with Stace 3, which uses 'fulva' for the C hostiana x lepidocarpa (previously Carex hostiana x viridula subsp. brachyrrhyncha).
The Hybrid Atlas atlas avoids the nothoname altogether due to the scope for confusion.
MapMate, has separate entries for the three hostiana x virudula subspecies (rather than using the stace 3 treatment at species level, i.e. does not use demissa, lepidocarpa and oederi)
Because of change of use between Stace 2 and 3 I think that use of the x fulva epithet should be avoided in MapMate. I propose changing the name of 'x31381zj' from 'Carex x fulva' to 'Carex hostiana x viridula s.l.' and blanking the erroneous vernacular name. That would match the way the name is interpreted in terms of BRC codes and fits with DDb mapping of this entry.
There may be instances where recorders have used 'x31381zj' to refer to hostiana x lepidocarpa (but there is already a separate entry for that concept).
At the same time it might be good to update the three subspecies hybrids to use Stace 3 nomenclature.