India • Haflong, North Cachar Hills, Assam; s.d.; W.G. Craib No. 463; lectotype: CAL[CAL0000020181]! here designated (Fig. 1) • same data; residual syntypes: CAL[CAL0000020180, CAL0000020182]!, K[K000884071, K000884072]!).

Justicia ‌craibii ‌W.W.Sm. (Smith 1913) was described based on collections of W.G. Craib from Haflong, North Cachar Hills in Assam, having the number 463. While searching the type materials for the name J. ‌craibii ‌W.W. Sm., five sheets of Craib’s collection were traced, out of which three are at CAL (CAL0000020180, CAL0000020181 and CAL0000020182) and two sheets at K (K000884071and K000884072). Therefore, all the specimens are considered as original material, and as well as the syntypes, vide Art. 9.4 and 9.6 of ICN (Turland et al.l.c.). The specimen bearing the barcode, CAL0000020181 contains an annotation of Smith, who identified the specimen as type for J. ‌craibii. This specimen at CAL[CAL0000020181!] is complete with well-preserved flower buds, inflorescence and fruits which agrees exactly with the description provided in the protologue. Hence, CAL0000020181 is selected here as the lectotype of the name J. ‌craibii ‌W.W. Smith.

India • “Coromandel”; s.d.; Macé s.n.; lectotype: P[P02898041]! here designated (Fig. 2) • same data; isolectotype: P[P02898039]! digital image•same location; “Coromandel”; s.d.; Macé “n. 114”; residual syntypes: GZU[GZU000250321, pro parte]!); “In muris Bernhampore ad Gangetem fluvium”, GZU[GZU000250323!].

C.G.D. Nees von Esenbeck (1847) described Rungia ‌muralis ‌Nees in de Candolle’s “Prodromus ‌Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis”, Volume 11 based on multiple gatherings and cited the specimen details as: “Ꝝ In muris Bernhampore ad Gangetem fluvium, in Courtallum (Wight!), Coromandel (Macé! In h. Mus. Paris. et Nees, n. 114)”. Thus, it is apparent that, while describing the species, Nees referred to multiple collections – plants growing on the walls of Berhampur, near the river Ganges and collection from Courtallum by Wight along with collections from Coromandel by Macé deposited in P and the specimen deposited in Nees’s own herbarium (GZU) labelled n.114. This referring of multiple collections, requires lectotypification of the name Rungia ‌muralis. In our search we found four herbarium sheets, two at herbarium of Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz (GZU) and two sheets at herbarium of Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (P). The two specimens at P (P02898039 and P02898041), were collected from Coromandel, by Macé; while one of the two herbarium sheets present at GZU (GZU000250323) contains a single individual with a label mentioning Rungia ‌muralis on the walls at Bernhampore, Ganges, collected by Wight. The other sheet at GZU (GZU000250321) contains two individuals with two different labels; of which, one label as “HERB. MUS. PARIS” printed on it showing the details as “Rungia ‌muralis” collected from Coromandel by Macé, and possesses the number 114. The other label reads as “R. ‌muralis ex. h. Roxb.”, which indicates that the specimen was received from Roxburgh’s collection. Scrutiny of literature confirmed the annotation “R. ‌muralis ex. h. Roxb.” and “Rungia ‌muralis” on GZU000250321 does not match with Roxburgh’s handwriting (Steinberg 1977); but confirmed to be of Nees (Burdet 1977). This implies that Nees had studied the specimens and pasted an annotation crediting Roxburgh for the sample. This creates an ambiguity regarding the source of the individuals on GZU000250321, i.e. which one is Macé’s collection from “Coromandel” with “n. 114” and which one was received from Roxburgh’s collection. Therefore, selection of any individual from GZU000250321for lectotypification of the name Rungia ‌muralis ‌Nees may not be correct, as it does not confirm which specimen was cited by Nees in protologue. The specimen collected from Coromandel by Macé deposited in P (P02898041) for being one of the best-preserved original materials, representing better morphological characters and not being in any conflict with the protologue, is selected here as the lectotype of the name Rungia ‌muralis ‌Nees, in accordance with Art. 9.3, 9.11 and 9.12 of ICN (Turland et al. 2018).

India • “In Pundua legit Fr. de Silva”; lectotype: GZU[GZU000251499]! here designated (Fig. 3) • residual syntype: BM[BM000950153]!).

The name Rungia ‌punduana ‌Nees was first appeared in Wallich’s Catalogue with the number “2453” without any description. Nees von Esenbeck in 1832, validated the name and validly published in “Plantae ‌Asiaticae Rariores”; with an annotation of specimen as “In Pundua legit Fr. de Silva” ascribing to Francis de Silva, one of the collectors of Nathaniel Wallich (Nees 1832). While working on Indian Justiciinae, two herbarium sheets of Rungia ‌punduana ‌Nees were traced; one at BM (BM000950153) with a single individual with label as “INDIA, WALLICH, 2453” without any details on locality and collector. The other herbarium sheet at GZU (GZU000251499) is also with a single individual with label details mentioned as “Rungia ‌punduana, ‌Pandua, Wall. Cat. no. 2453” and the collection was credited to Fr. De Silva. Both the specimens are to be treated as original material and therefore, are the syntypes in accordance with the Art. 9.6 of ICN (Turland et al. 2018). The specimen at GZU(GZU000251499), is well preserved and matches perfectly with the protologue which leads to its selection as the lectotype of the name Rungia ‌punduana ‌Nees in accordance to Article 9.3, 9.11 and 9.12 of ICN (Turland et al. 2018).