“…For the 19 species with existing DNA barcodes and sequences, we expanded the available data by generating additional DNA sequences using a broader array of DNA barcoding markers. According to the literature, some DNA barcodes were accessible for the following species: viz; R. serpentina ; trnL-trnF, ITS2, matK, rbcL and trnL (Eurlings et al (2013); Cahyaningsih, et al (2022); C. nagbettai ; rbcL, matK, psbA-trnH, rpoC, rpoB, psbKpsbI, atpF-atpH and RPB2 (Kurian, et al (2020); (Table 1); O. indicum ; ITS2, psbA-trnH (Cui, et al (2020); G. indica ; rbcL, ITS, psbA-trnHf, RpoB-trnCGAR, Matk (Seethapathy et al 2018); C. circinalis ; ITS2 (Gao, et al (2010); S. roxburghii ; ITS1 and ITS2; psbM, rbcL, psbH, rpoC2 (Osathanunkul, et al (2021); H. parviflora; MatK, rbcL (data unpublished); V. chinensis; rbc However, in our study, we developed additional markers beyond those that currently exist. We observed that certain existing markers were not amplified in our samples, possibly due to sequence mixing, as evidenced in species such as R. serpentina, G. indica, C. circinalis, S. roxburghii , and P. santalinus (Table 1).…”