"When all the parent taxa can be postulated or are known, a nothotaxon is
circumscribed so as to include all individuals (as far as they can be
recognized) derived from the crossing of representatives of the stated
parent taxa (i.e. not only the F1 but subsequent filial generations and also
back-crosses and combinations of these). There can thus be only one correct
name corresponding to a particular hybrid formula; this is the earliest
legitimate name (see Art.6.3) in the appropriate rank (Art.H.5), and other
names to which the same hybrid formula applies are synonyms of it."
If you think your dubious _N.*hookeriana_ is not what it should be, why
not giving the plant a *new* name instead of trying to "correct" the
bastard formula of _N.*hookeriana_? This "correction" is *impossible*,
anyway, as the stated (i.e. correct) parentage of _N.*hookeriana_ is
(and will be for all future) _N.rafflesiana_ * _N.ampullaria_.
Equally, no variety of _N.boissiense_ may have another specific
parentage than the one of _N.boissiense_. The _var.rubra_ of Lecoufle
as opposed to the one projected by Weiner (see my list) *needs* another
nothospecific epithet: It just cannot be designed a variety of a hybrid
with *different* parentage!
The problem with _N.*dominii_ is, the second (male) parent was unknown
at the date of original publication. The first suggestion was by
Macfarlane (I assume), who thought the male parent could be (probably)
_N.gracilis_, indicating he was not too sure about it.
Now, if Bruce or you do have evidence for the assumption that Macfarlane
was wrong and the male parent was _N.hirsuta_, I wouldn't mind to update
my list. But I have two important questions:
1. Do you really have _N.*dominii_ (i.e. clones of the taxon described more
than a century ago) or authentical specimens?
2. Are you sure about the true _N.hirsuta_ (i.e. *not* _N.gracilis_ to be
involved in that hybrid (I know, several clones of this species were
introduced quite recently)?
The result of changing the parentage in _N.*dominii_ would be changes in all
hybrids derived from it (I fear, a whole lot!).
_N.*intermedia_ is very probably a synonym of _N.*dominii_, and thus, if its
clonal diversity is to be stressed, it should be called a variety of it
(_N.*dominii_var.intermedia_). I don't believe in varieties in _Nepenthes_,
though (cf. Danser).
You see, the very point of my argumentation is to stress the fundamental
difference between hybrid names and species names. A hybrid needs not
to be described formally, only the parentage must be stated. Hybrid
names are *not* based on type specimens and thus are of
*theoretical value*, only. They are sort of abbreviations (i.e. they
are equivalent) to a specific bastard formula. Thus, the nothospecific
name applies to all individuals of equal specific parentage.
I have seen the type specimen of _N.burkei_ (at K), and it is quite
another plant than _N.ventricosa_ (non-type, but quite surely this
species seen at K). Maybe this is a hybrid of _N.ventricosa_, but I am
at a loss to propose the other parent!
Kind regards
Jan