AbstractSariva [Hemidesmus indicus (L.) R. Br. ex Schult.], a widely used medicinal plant in India, although well-established as H. indicus (L.) R. Br. ex Schult., Apocynaceae; different botanical sources are used. This study reviews botanical sources available in the drug market, their classical references, and contemporary documentation. This study is an exclusive documentation of scattered information of Sariva and its various botanical resources. Significant keywords used were Sariva, Krishnasariva, Utpalasariva, Shyama, Ananta, Asphota, Gopavalli, Krishnavalli, Bhadra, Chandana, Kalindi, H. indicus, Ichnocarpus frutescens, Cryptolepis buchanani, and Decalepis hamiltonii. Different textual references suggest Sariva to be H. indicus (L.) R. Br. ex Schult., Cryptolepis buchanani Roem. & Schult., I. frutescens (L.) W. T. Aiton, Decalepis hamiltonii Wight & Arn., and Asphota (Phyllanthus distichus (L.) Müll. Arg. or Clitoria ternatea (L.)). Substitutes discussed are Decalepis hamiltonii Wight & Arn., Maerua arenaria Hook. f. & Thomson, Smilax china L., Periploca aphylla Decne., stem pieces of Cryptolepis buchanani, Ichnocarpus, Goravaganja, Karanta (Barleria prionites L.), and Vallaris species, whereas adulterants include Begonia carpreolata L., Bignoniaceae, and Polygonum amplexicaulis D. Don. Results indicate that Sariva is more similar to H. indicus (L.) R. Br. ex Schult., Asphotaa as H. indicus, or Vallaris heynei Spreng. Shweta and Krishnasariva are mentioned as H. indicus and Cryptolepis buchanani, respectively. The potential to identify all the possible sources will definitely assist in detecting adulteration. Furthermore, as many plants are becoming endangered, different botanical sources may be further tested through experimental and clinical studies to identify species exhibiting properties and actions more closer to those of the original Sariva.