本研究利用外部形態、地理分布、葉綠體trnL-F基因序列和核ITS基因序列等資料，對台灣產冷水麻屬植物進行分類研究。外部形態研究結果顯示托葉形態、葉緣形態、葉片氣孔與鐘乳體的分布、花被數目和形態為重要分類特徵，植株習性、毛被的有無、花序和瘦果微細形態亦可提供分類的參考；本研究結果將台灣產冷水麻屬植物處理為14個分類群，將Pilea peploides var. major併入P. peploides，且將P. sinofasciata併入P. matsudae，另將P. miyakei處理為疑問種，其餘皆支持第二版台灣植物誌的處理。
Weddell及陳家瑞曾以形態特徵為主要依據分別提出兩個不同的屬內分類系統，但Monro根據分子研究已證實這兩個以形態建構的屬下分類系統並無法反映本屬植物之親緣關係。本研究利用葉綠體trnL-F基因序列和核ITS基因序列建構親緣關係樹，檢視本屬各分類群之間的關係，並訂正陳家瑞建構的屬下分類系統。結果顯示P. japonica與長梗盤花麻歸在同一支序，分類地位必須重新檢討；過去所定義的四萼組為一旁系群(paraphyly)，三萼組和冷水花組則為多系群(polyphyly)。本研究重新修訂四萼組的形態特徵及範圍，也提供其餘支序與形態特徵和地理區系的關聯，以利未來進一步的屬下分類訂正。

In this study, the genus Pilea in Taiwan was taxonomically revised based on morphological, geographical, and molecular phylogenetical studies. The results suggest that morphology of stipule and leaf margin, distribution of stoma and cystolith on leaf surface, tepal number and tepal morphology are the most important characters for classification of Taiwanese species. Plant habit, present of hair, inflorescence and achene morphology also provide useful information. As a result, 14 taxa of Pilea were recognized in Taiwan. Pilea peploides var. major was treated as the synonym of P. peploides; Pilea sinofasciata was treated as the synonym of P. matsudae, and P. miyakei was treated as an uncertain species. Except for the treatments above, others were agreed that of Flora of Taiwan 2nd ed.
Within Pilea there have been two different subgeneric classifications, Weddell’s and Chen’s, both of them are based on morphological characters. The incongruence of morphology and phylogeny of the two subgeneric classifications was proved in Monro’s molecular study. To explore the phylogenetic relationship of the genus and to revise Chen’s subgeneric classification, cpDNA trnL-F region and nrDNA ITS were used to construct a phylogenetic tree. The genus Lecanthus and P. japonica form a monophyletic group, which suggests the taxonomic status of P. japonica should be further confirmed. The results suggest Chen's sect. Tetrameris forms a paraphyly, and both sect. Urticella and sect. Pilea are polyphyletic group. This study revised the sect. Tetrameris, but also provided the relationships of the other clades with morphology and geographic distribution It might enable the revision of the genus in the future.

王文采, 陳家瑞 1995 蕁麻科 中國植物誌 23 (2): 57-156. 科學出版社 北京
王裕發 1996 鴛鴦湖地區植物的花粉形態研究 國立台灣大學植物學研究所 碩士論文
施炳霖 1995 台灣蕁麻科盤花麻族之分類研究 國立中山大學生命科學研究所 碩士論文
陳家瑞 1982 中國蕁麻科冷水花屬的研究 植物研究 2 (3): 1-132.
黃文達 1971 台灣之蕁麻科植物 國立台灣大學森林研究所 碩士論文
劉棠瑞, 陳擎霞 1974 台灣之蕁麻科植物 台灣省立博物館科學年凼 17: 1-28.
應紹舜 1988 台灣高等植物彩色圖誌 3: 422-440.
Barker, J. K. & F. M. Lutzoni. 2002. The utility of the incongruence length difference test. Systematic Biology 51: 625-637.
Bawa, K. S. & J. E. Crisp. 1980. Wink-pollination in the understorey of a rain forest in Costa Rica. Journal of Ecology 68: 871-876.
Blume, C. L. 1856. Museum Botanicum Lugdduno-Batavum, 2 (4): 45-57.
Chen, C. J. and A. K. Monro. 2003. Urticaceae: Pilea. In Z. Y. Wu et al. (eds.), Flora of China 5: 92-120. Science Press, Beijing, and Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis.
Conn, B. J. & J. T. Hadiah. 2009. Nomenclature of tribes within the Urticaceae. Kew Bulletin 64: 349-352.
Darlu, P., & Lecointre. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 432-437.
Dolphin, K., R. Belshaw, C. D. L. Orme, and D. L. J. Quicke. 2000. Noise and incongruence: interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 17: 401-406.
Erdtman, G. 1952. Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy: Angiosperms. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Friis, I. 1989. The Urticaceae: a systematic review. Evolution, systematic, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae, vol. 2, Systematics Association Special Volume 40B, 285-308. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford, UK.
Hance, H. F. 1885. Spicilegia Florae Sinensis Journal of Botany, British and Foreign. London. 23 (275) 327-328.
Handel-Mazzetti, H. 1929. Symbolae Sinicae 7: 110-142.
Hayata, B. 1908. Urticaceae. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Japan. 25 (19): 195-199.
Hayata, B. 1911. Urticaceae. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Japan. 30 (1): 272-283.
Hayata, B. 1916. Icones Plantarum Formosanarum 6: 43-61.
Henry, A. 1896. A List of Plants from Formosa with Some Preliminary Remarks on the Geography, Nature of the Flora and Economic Botany of the Island. Trans. Asiat. Soc. Japan 24 Suppl.: 89.
Huang, T. C. 1972. Urticaceae. Pollen Flora of Taiwan. 241. Botanical Department Press National Taiwan University. Taipei.
Lindley, J. 1821. Collectanea botanica, vol. 4 A. and R. Arch, London, UK.
Liu, T. S., and W. D. Huang. 1976. Urticaceae. In H. L. Li et al. (eds.), Flora of Taiwan, 2: 162-229. Epoch Publ. Co., Taipei.
Masamune, G. 1936. Short Flora of Formosa. (An enumeration of higher cryptogamic and phanerogamic plants hitherto known from the island of Formosa and its adjacent islands), pp. 49-51. Kudoa, Taihoku (Taipei).
Matsumura, J., and B. Hayata. 1906. Urticaceae. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Japan. 22: 368-390.
Maximovicz, C. J. I. 1876. Achudemia japonica. Mélanges biologicques tirés du bulletin physico-mathématique de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 9: 627-629.
Mickevich, M. F. & J. S. Farris. 1981. The implications of congruence in Menidia. Systematic Zoology 30: 351-370.
Monro, A. K. 2006. The Revision of Species-Rich Genera: A Phylogenetic Framework for the Strategic Revision of Pilea (Urticaceae) Based on cpDNA, nrDNA, and Morphology. American Journal Botany, 93 (3): 426-441.
Shih, B. L. and Y. P. Yang. 1998. New names and record of Urticaceae in Taiwan. Taiwania, 43 (2): 150-154.
Shih, B. L., Y. P. Yang, and H. Y. Liu. 1995. A revision on Pilea, Lecanthus, and Procris (Urticaceae) of Taiwan. Taiwania, 40 (3): 256-290.
Takhtajan, A. 1986. Floristic regions of the world. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.
Tateishi, Y. 2006. Pilea. In K. Iwatsuki et al. (eds.), Flora of Japan, 2: 82-88. Tokyo, Japan.
Van Royen, P. 1982. Pilea. The apine flora of New Guinea, 3 : 2089-2136. Cramer, Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
Weddell, H. A. 1854. Revue de la famille de Urticacées. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Botanique, Ser. 4 1: 173 – 212.
Weddell, H. A. 1856. Monographie de la famille des Urticées. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris. 9: (1) – 400.
Weddell, H. A. 1857. Monographie de la famille des Urticées. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris. 9: 401 – 592.
Weddell, H. A. 1869. Urticaceae. In: A. de Candolle (ed.), Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis., 6 (1), pp. 32 – 35. Masson, Paris.
Wright, C. H. 1899. Urticaceae. Journal of the Linnean Society. Botany. 26 (178): 475-480.
Yamamoto, Y. 1925. Supplements Iconum Plantarum Formosanarum, 1: 2-29.
Yamamoto, Y. 1931. Journal of the Society of Tropical Agriculture, 3: 241.
Yamamoto, Y. 1932. Supplements Iconum Plantarum Formosanarum, 5: 17-18.
Yang, Y. P., B. L. Shih, and H. Y. Liu. 1996. Urticaceae. In T. C. Huang et al. (eds.), Flora of Taiwan, 2nd ed. 2: 234-253. Editorial Committee of the Flora of Taiwan, Taiwan, R.O.C.