The status of an original name as a species or a subspecies is important if precendence between two subjective synnyms established at the same date has to be determined (the name established at higher rank takes precedence).
I have not understood if the subspecies status assigned by the authors of the proposed List referred to the current taxonomic status of these names, or to the original descriptions, or mixed.
I have not been able to consult the modern literature to check some cases (modern literature is not online and ordering it in the library is a very time consuming process).
In the case of Lecane wulferti Hauer, 1956 I saw a comment in the PDF file (where it was listed as a subspecies) that this name was regarded as a junior subjective synonym of another species which was called "nominal taxon". In the final online version of the proposed list this name was elevated to species rank. This could mean that some mixup may have occurred, in this one and also in other species.
I know this effect from my own work and that of other colleagues who elaborated such nomenclators: you make a mistake and after many years you become aware of having repeated this mistake all the time. The consequence is that you have to revise all your thousands of names in your list or data file, to correct this mistake.
I hope that this is not such a case here, and that the list does not contain hundreds of names of which not the original species/subspecies rank was recorded, but only that of a currently used classification. This should probably be checked.