Dioscorides' Plants, Then and Now
ἀκαλήφη

Stinging nettle

Urtica dioica L. · Urticaceae
Identification: ProbableNot endemic to GreeceLC Least Concern
Risk rank
11 of 32 (7–26)
Risk score
0.31(0.31–0.34)2 · Moderate

Then and now

2050 · moderate emissions. SSP2-4.5, 2041-2060, 3 climate models; ranges show the spread.

The plant
ἀκαλήφη
Photograph of Urtica dioica
Photo: Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons (photo of Stinging nettle)
2050 · moderate emissions
Natural Earth (PD) · model output · ~10 km cells
Loading map layers (0 of 1)
Layers
Range keptLost by 2050Gained by 2050Cultivation zoneNatura 2000Occurrence cellCells ≈ 10 × 10 km

Occurrences are aggregated to ~10 km cells; exact points are never published. View range data as a table

De Materia Medica · Book IV · ch. 93c. 50–70 CE
ἀκαλήφη
akalēphē (syn. knidē)
ἀκαλήφη· οἱ δὲ κνίδην. δισσὸν εἶδος ταύτης· ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἀγριωτέρα, τραχυτέρα καὶ πλατυτέρα καὶ μελαντέρα τοῖς φύλλοις …
Modern identification
Urtica dioicaL. · UrticaceaeProbable

Source: Sprengel, K. 1830. Pedanii Dioscoridis Anazarbei De materia medica libri quinque, tomus secundus (Commentarius in Dioscoridem), Medicorum Graecorum Opera vol….

Full citation and quoted evidence

Sprengel, K. 1830. Pedanii Dioscoridis Anazarbei De materia medica libri quinque, tomus secundus (Commentarius in Dioscoridem), Medicorum Graecorum Opera vol. 26, Leipzig, Comm. lib. IV cap. XCII, p. 615 (the two kinds of ἀκαλήφη were recognised as Urtica urens and U. dioica by Brunfels and Tragus; Sprengel sees nothing to change)

Opening words of the chapter (Wellmann numbering). Edition: Wellmann 1906-1914 (vol. I 1907, vol. II 1906), Berlin: Weidmann; transcribed by eye from the archive.org page scan (Wellmann's ϑ glyph rendered as θ; no emendation). See the page scan.

Modern official status

European Medicines Agency herbal monograph

Urticae folium; Urticae herba; Urticae radix

We report regulatory status only and make no claim about effects. Read the monograph for its exact wording.

Open the monograph on ema.europa.eu

Projected range change by 2050

2050 · moderate (SSP2-4.5)−29% (−29 to −36%)
2050 · high (SSP5-8.5)−41% (−34 to −45%)

Median and spread across 3 climate models. Whisker axis −80% to +20%, dashed tick at 0; a chevron means the value runs beyond the axis.

Suitable cultivation area, 2050 moderate0 km² (0–0 km²)

Risk score breakdown

0.31 (0.31–0.34)Moderate risk class 2
00.51.0
  • Range loss 0.12 of max 0.40 · (0.12–0.14)
  • Endemism 0.00 of max 0.20 · not endemic
  • Conservation status 0.00 of max 0.20 · LC · Least Concern
  • Harvest pressure 0.20 of max 0.20

Stays in the top 10 in 27% of 1,000 random weightings.

How the score is built, and how sensitive it is to weights

Model quality

Standard grade
AUC (spatial block CV)
0.76 ± 0.02
Distance-only baseline AUC
0.73 ours is higher
Boyce index
0.88 ± 0.14
TSS
0.43 ± 0.06
Occurrence records
505 after cleaning (of 583)

5-fold spatial block cross-validation (~25 km blocks); ± is one standard deviation across folds. Null model AUC 0.52. The baseline scores each held-out point by its distance to the nearest training record, on the same folds. "Standard" grade means ≥ 30 records, AUC ≥ 0.75 and above the baseline; fewer than 10 records is a data gap; anything else is low grade.

Suggested action

Protect: no cultivation fallback

Prioritise in-situ protection and seed banking; no suitable farmland found.

Rule: Loses habitat in all 3 climate models · no 2050 cultivation zone.

See the action plan

Identification through time

Who has matched ἀκαλήφη to which modern plant, from the Renaissance to today.

All names through time
Cited for the identification we modelProposed an alternativeAlternative preferred by our sourceAlternative rejected by our sourceCommonly proposed, not verified by us
Renaissance commentators
Linnaean botany & Flora Graeca
Edition
Modern
150016001700180019002000

Select a mark to read who proposed which plant, and the source we read it in.

Dates are each authority's main herbal or commentary (approximate, "c."), used to order the timeline. Claims are parsed from our curated identification table; every quote links back to a page scan or edition on the plant page.

Caveats

  • Identification is probable; results describe Urtica dioica L., which may not be the plant Dioscorides meant.

Range data (map alternative)

ScenarioSuitable ~10 km cellsChangeShare in Natura 2000
Now894—27.7%
2050 moderate647 (596–658)−29% (−29 to −36%)32% (31–33%)
2050 high565 (543–619)−41% (−34 to −45%)33% (32–34%)