부산대학교 도서관

Urtica stimulansL.f., the basionym of the currently accepted name Dendrocnide stimulans(L.f.) Chew, and Urtica fruticosaL.f., were both published in 1782 by Linné filius in Supplementum plantarumand are here lectotypified with specimens from original material collected by Thunberg on Java. After its publication, U. fruticosahas only been cited as a synonym of Dendrocnide stimulans, but that is a misidentification. “Urtica paniculataGaudich.” was not validly published, appearing in the synonymy of Fleurya paniculataGaudich. in 1830 (as “Urtica paniculataolim”), currently in Laportea ruderalis(G.Forst.) Chew, while Urtica paniculataRoxb. was validly published in 1832 as a legitimate name and is lectotypified here. Morus paniculataRoxb. 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 paniculataRoxb. and Urtica paniculataRoxb. 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 fruticosaL.f., Urtica paniculataRoxb., Morus paniculataRoxb. 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 argenteaG.Forst., published in 1786, is antedated by Urtica fruticosaL.f., published in 1782. To avoid an unfortunate change of the widely used name Pipturus argenteus, Urtica fruticosaL.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 fruticosaWright., sphalm. (based on mixed material).