Urtica stimulans L.f., the basionym of the currently accepted name Dendrocnide stimulans (L.f.) Chew, and Urtica fruticosa L.f., were both published in 1782 by Linné filius in Supplementum plantarum and are here lectotypified with specimens from original material collected by Thunberg on Java. After its publication, U. fruticosa has only been cited as a synonym of Dendrocnide stimulans, but that is a misidentification. “Urtica paniculata Gaudich.” was not validly published, appearing in the synonymy of Fleurya paniculata Gaudich. in 1830 (as “Urtica paniculata olim”), currently in Laportea ruderalis (G.Forst.) Chew, while Urtica paniculata Roxb. was validly published in 1832 as a legitimate name and is lectotypified here. Morus paniculata Roxb. was published in 1814 without a description, solely validated with reference to a description and a plate in Rumphius, Herbarium Amboinense. The information about the species
Morus paniculata Roxb. and Urtica paniculata Roxb. may in part stem from the same trees grown in the Calcutta Botanic Garden, but the contexts in which Roxburgh published these two names are bibliographically distinct and without cross-references; they stand as two independent names and are lectotypified on separate material. Urtica fruticosa L.f., Urtica paniculata Roxb., Morus paniculata Roxb. and Botrymorus paniculata (Roxb.) Miq. are all legitimate names and identified with Pipturus argenteus (G.Forst.) Wedd. (1869), a highly variable species occurring around and on islands in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Its basionym, Urtica argentea G.Forst., published in 1786, is antedated by Urtica fruticosa L.f., published in 1782. To avoid an unfortunate change of the widely used name Pipturus argenteus, Urtica fruticosa L.f. is proposed separately as a nomen rejiciendum under Art. 56. Notes are provided on the original material of
names that have been confused with the above-mentioned names, including Urtica fruticosa Wright., sphalm. (based on mixed material).