Hello Chris.  Just chasing up a seaweedy problem I have found this result on G5 (my numbering):

Name    Preferred Name    Record Count
1  Codium fragile atlanticum    Codium fragile atlanticum (A.D.Cotton) P.C.Silva, 1955, ALGA    82
2  Codium fragile spp. atlanticum    Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum (A.D. Cotton) P.C. Silva, ALGA    142
3  Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum    Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum (A.D. Cotton) P.C. Silva, ALGA    142
4  Codium fragile var. atlanticum    Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum (A.D. Cotton) P.C. Silva, ALGA    142
5  Codium fragile var. fragile    Codium fragile subsp. fragile (Suringar) Hariot, 1889, ALGA    8
6  Codium fragile fragile    Codium fragile fragile (Suringar) Hariot, 1889, ALGA    73
7  Codium fragile subsp. fragile    Codium fragile subsp. fragile (Suringar) Hariot, 1889, ALGA    8
8  Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides    Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides (Goor) P.C.Silva, ALGA    138
9  Codium fragile spp. tomentosoides    Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides (Goor) P.C.Silva, ALGA    138
10Codium fragile tomentosoides    Codium fragile fragile (Suringar) Hariot, 1889, ALGA    73

I have discovered that the taxonomy of this species is a bit of a problem (Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2016, 96(5), 1005–1029. # Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2015
doi:10.1017/S0025315415001484) so the resolution might not be easy.

However, as far as these results are concerned, given the way the preferred names are allocated, we surely must have equal numbers of records for taxa 1-4; and no 10, C.f. fragile should have at least 146 records (8 fragile + 138 tomentosoides).

It is things like this that make me so grateful I don't have your job!

M.