taxonID	type	description	language	source
03EB87D3FF8BE67EFF87FA412948927B.taxon	distribution	Distribution — Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Malesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam. Notes — The present study corroborates the views of Hansen (1985) and Hu et al. (2011) that this species is highly variable in habit, leaf shape and size, and structure of inflorescence. The indumentum pattern on the leaves, inflorescence rachises, pedicels, bracts, bracteoles, calyces and capsule also varies considerably. Clarke (1884) recognised two varieties in this species, var. tenuiflora and var. recedens C. B. Clarke. He fur- ther distinguished var. tenuiflora into three distinct variations: tenuiflora, parishii and andrographioides. Here, we recognise var. parishii and var. recedens as varieties distinct from var. laxiflorus. The name Haplanthus tener var. elongatus is lectotypified here. Nees (1832) described this taxon based on the collections of Wallich Numer. List No. 7185 b & c. An examination of these specimens shows that the specimen ‘ 7185 b ’ has two gatherings collected from Prome marked as ‘ 7185 b 1 ’ (K 000014474) and Taong Dong marked as ‘ 7185 b 2 ’ (K 000014473) and specimen ‘ 7185 c ’ collected from Tavoy (K 000014472). Of these, the specimen ‘ 7185 b 2 ’ is selected here as the lectotype for this name since it is complete with flowers and also matches with the description provided in the protologue. Similarly, the name Gymnostachyum andrographioides is also lectotypified here. Anderson (1867) cited ‘ Hab. Assam, Masters!; Burmah, Griffith! ’ in the protologue without stating any other details such as field numbers and place of herbarium. A thorough search of these specimens at different herbaria resulted in locating only the Griffith s. n. collected from Burma at CAL (Acc. No.: 341233) with the name of this species annotated by the original author. Therefore, this specimen is chosen here as the lectotype of this name.	en	Gnanasekaran, G., Murthy, G. V. S., Deng, Y. F. (2016): Resurrection of the genus Haplanthus (Acanthaceae: Andrographinae). Blumea 61 (3): 165-169, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693185, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693185
03EB87D3FF8BE67EFCC8FCE3289A940E.taxon	description	Deng, comb. nov. Haplanthus laxiflorus (Blume) Gnanasek., G. V. S. Murthy & Y. F. Deng var. parishii (T. Anderson) Gnanasek., G. V. S. Murthy & Y. F. Deng. — Gymnostachyum parishii T. Anderson, J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 9 (1867) 504. — Type: Helfer s. n. (lecto CAL 0000019987, here designated), India, Andaman Islands, s. dat. Distribution — India. Note — Anderson (1867) treated H. tener var. elongatus as a synonym of G. parishii whereas the type specimen of the former name matches well with var. laxiflorus. Therefore H. tener var. elongatus is here treated as synonym of Haplanthus laxiflorus var. laxiflorus. Examination of specimens cited by Anderson (1867) under G. parishii reveals that they are a mixture of two distinct taxa. Helfer s. n. is chosen here as the lectotype because all the other syntypes are identical with var. laxiflorus. The variety parishii can be distinguished from var. laxiflorus by being glabrous throughout, with very loose, filiform racemose inflorescences with a solitary flower in each node of the rachis.	en	Gnanasekaran, G., Murthy, G. V. S., Deng, Y. F. (2016): Resurrection of the genus Haplanthus (Acanthaceae: Andrographinae). Blumea 61 (3): 165-169, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693185, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693185
03EB87D3FF8BE67EFCC8FA7F29B49625.taxon	description	Haplanthus laxiflorus (Blume) Gnanasek., G. V. S. Murthy & Y. F. Deng var. recedens (C. B. Clarke) Gnanasek., G. V. S. Murthy & Y. F. Deng. — Andrographis tenuifolia T. Anderson var. recedens C. B. Clarke in Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 4 (1884) 502. — Type: Beddome s. n. (holo BM 001050065), Myanmar, Tenasserim, Mooleeyit, 2000 ft, s. dat. Distribution — Myanmar. Note — This variety has not appeared in any of the later works after it was originally described by Clarke (1884) but it is recognised here as a distinct variety under H. laxiflorus. It can be distinguished from the typical variety by having glabrous filiform habit with a very lax compound panicle with clusters of flowers in each node of the rachis.	en	Gnanasekaran, G., Murthy, G. V. S., Deng, Y. F. (2016): Resurrection of the genus Haplanthus (Acanthaceae: Andrographinae). Blumea 61 (3): 165-169, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693185, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693185
03EB87D3FF8BE679FCC8F8A52C3390C2.taxon	description	Haplanthusovatus (T. AndersonexBedd.) Gnanasek., G. V. S. Murthy & Y. F. Deng. — Gymnostachyum ovatum T. Anderson ex Bedd., Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 60, 61 (1874) t. 250. — Andrographis ovata (T. Anderson ex Bedd.) Benth. & Hook. f. (1876) 1100. — Type: Beddome s. n. (lecto BM 001050057, upper one, here designated), India, Odisha, Ganjam District, Myhendra (Mahen- dragiri) hills, 2000 – 4000 ft, s. dat. Distribution — India. Note — Beddome (1874) validated the manuscript name of Anderson based on the specimens collected from the Myhendra hills, Berhampore at 2000 – 4000 ft elevation. During the present study, the above cited collection was traced at BM; the sheet has three specimens with the barcode number BM 001050057. Of these, the upper specimen is chosen here as the lectotype as it is complete and precisely matches the illustration provided in the protologue.	en	Gnanasekaran, G., Murthy, G. V. S., Deng, Y. F. (2016): Resurrection of the genus Haplanthus (Acanthaceae: Andrographinae). Blumea 61 (3): 165-169, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693185, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693185
03EB87D3FF8CE679FF87FE382FC39237.taxon	description	Haplanthus rosulatus (Bremek.) Gnanasek., G. V. S. Murthy & Y. F. Deng. — Andrographis rosulata Bremek., Dansk Bot. Ark. 23 (1966) 277. — Type: Hansen, Seidenfaden & Smitinand 10786 (holo C 10004735, seen digital image), Thailand, 1000 m, 19 Jan. 1964. Distribution — Thailand. Note — This species was treated as conspecific with A. laxiflora by Hansen (1985). However, it can be distinguished from the latter by the following characters: i) leaves rosulate vs cauline; and ii) capsules small (10 – 12 mm) vs large (up to 22 mm).	en	Gnanasekaran, G., Murthy, G. V. S., Deng, Y. F. (2016): Resurrection of the genus Haplanthus (Acanthaceae: Andrographinae). Blumea 61 (3): 165-169, DOI: 10.3767/000651916X693185, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/000651916x693185
