Thank you. I must have overlooked that. The guidance is pretty clear and well-expressed.
Clearly, unique common names are the best solution. I’m curious about the guidance to “choose” unique common names for subspecies. If they’re already documented, that’s fine. But if regular usage is to use the same common name for the nominate subspecies, that leaves this taxon as the only one without a common name.
A similar issue is at the root of why the word “Common” is included in many English language names for organisms – once humans realized there were several different varieties of “X”, the familiar one was named “Common X” to distinguish it. As noted in another thread, this can be misleading when “Common X” isn’t encountered often (or at all) in other regions.