The little cantabricus type looks like what I have been growing as N. cantabricus tananicus. This is an invalid name, and I think Rafa calls something very similar N. eualbidus.
Anne - let me add to the nomenclatural confusion:
RBG Kew does not even recognise the existence of a name
N. eualbidus but accepts the name
N. cantabricus subsp.
tananicus as legitimate**.
In her 2009 list Rannveig Wallis includes
N. cantabricus var.
eualbidus whose name she attributes to Mike Salmon. Her description sounds like your plant. Needless to say, Kew does not even recognise the existence of such a name.
In the
AGS Bull. 68 (2), June 2000 Ron Beeston pictures a plant like yours which he calls
N. cantabricus subsp.
clusii but mentions that Mike Salmon believes it should be called subsp
eualbidum [
sic].
I have more, but I think this is enough to be going on with.
I have the impression that Mike Salmon follows the 'Spanish splitters’ whereas Kew tends to ‘lump’.
Take your pick.
Edit:
**As does Blanchard, but his plant sounds completely different!