Status, typification, and synonymy of some early names for South Asian and Oceanian plants proposed in Urtica or in other genera now in the Urticaceae.

L.f., the basionym of the currently accepted name (L.f.) Chew, and L.f., were both published in 1782 by Linné filius in and are here lectotypified with specimens from original material collected by Thunberg on Java. After its publication, has only been cited as a synonym of , but that is a misidentification. “ Gaudich.” was not validly published, appearing in the synonymy of Gaudich. in 1830 (as “ olim”), currently in (G.Forst.) Chew, while Roxb. was validly published in 1832 as a legitimate name and is lectotypified here. Roxb. was published in 1814 without a description, solely validated with reference to a description and a plate in Rumphius, . The information about the species Roxb. and 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. L.f., Roxb., Roxb. and (Roxb.) Miq. are all legitimate names and identified with (G.Forst.) Wedd. (1869), a highly variable species occurring around and on islands in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Its basionym, G.Forst., published in 1786, is antedated by L.f., published in 1782. To avoid an unfortunate change of the widely used name , 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 Wright., sphalm. (based on mixed material).