--
***********************************************
"TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!"
Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae)
Research Associate
Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project
Department of Habitat Ecology
Wildlife Institute of India
Post Box # 18
Dehradun - 248001, India
There is one technical issue here. You cant write, "Hibiscus
hispidissimus (syn. H. furcatus, H. aculeatus)".
Why?
Because, the reprint and your link uses some words like "non Willd."
and "non Walter". So it means these two names (H. furcatus & H.
aculeatus) are being given by Walter and Willdenow for other taxa and
they are being validly used. So your writing this way means you have
merged three different species in one, which is not the case here.
So now we have three names here. The above plant being:
Hibiscus hispidissimus Griff., Not. Pl. Asiat. 4: 521 (1854).
Synonyms:
Hibiscus aculeatus Roxb., Fl. Ind. 3: 206 (1832) (non Walter 1788) (nom. illeg.)
Hibiscus furcatus Roxb. ex DC., Prodr. 1: 448 (1824) (non Willdenow)
(nom. illeg.)
nom. illeg. means name is illegitimate according to the ICBN's
Priority of Publication (Article 11), i.e., wrong, because, there are
other two plants accepted with the same two names but given by two
different authors. Those names are as follows:
Hibiscus furcatus Willd., Enum. Pl. [Willdenow] 2: 736 (1809).
Hibiscus aculeatus Walter, Fl. Carol. [Walter] 177 (1788).
So the solution:
If you dont wish to write the original citation like most of the
taxonomists do, then, in the simplest way it can be written as:
Hibiscus hispidissimus [syn. H. furcatus (not the originally
described), H. aculeatus (not the originally described)].
or
Hibiscus hispidissimus [syn. H. furcatus (non Willdenow), H. aculeatus
(non Walter)]
Hope this is understandable.
Regards
Pankaj