Well, i went less with "looks like" and more with what i am thinking of as literal imagery. If i describe the vms plant, it appears to apply literally to the description of the plant i matched it to, even if the drawing is not perfect, with things left out, different sizing of various parts, and other obfuscations. I realize that saying there are obfuscations can seem like explaining away what doesn't match, but i am convinced it is hiding information in clear sight.
So for instance for You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. what i took as important was
1. Round flowers, berries, and/or seeds, on four racemes, above the leaves. The positions match if you consider the drawing to be 3d and showing four splayed racemes in four directions, although the actual flowers and racemes are much smaller, the racemes more complex than drawn, and the "above the leaves" part is directly above "each" group of leaves in reality, not a single set above "all" groups of leaves as drawn.
2. Leaves mostly opposite, possible compound, with hairs or hooks on the edges. Stinging nettle has this quality of having hairs or hooks, they are the stinging part. Maybe the s shapes signify this? Edges means everywhere, edges from all perspectives. The leaves are generally singular toward the top, only lower leaves are pinnate, but the opposite pinnate drawings almost look like small plants. So the general look as drawn gives both the idea of opposing odd pinnate but also the single opposite perspective of a younger plant.
3. Roots with thick stolons and rhizomes, with thinner rootlets coming from them. I thought it was a pretty good match.
The first example here also shows what i mean about the young plants being reminiscent of the odd pinnate leaves of an older plant.
4. Stipules (
small leaflike appendage to a leaf, typically borne in pairs at the base of the leaf stalk). Drawn in the wrong place on the diagram(at the root), in real life occur at the leaf stalks. Many people consider them the telltale sign they have correctly identified stinging nettle.
Your baneberry suggestion does not address the leaf edgeing, does not explain the lack of showing the toothed nature of the leaves, the raceme is generally singular and erect, the root is dissimilar, and has no stipules but it does seem to have something at the join with the root. Overall though i don't get a sense of the plant from looking at the drawing, whereas i do with the stinging nettle plant, even though the resemblance is piecemeal and sort of time-warpy in seeing young and mature parts at the same time, and zooming in and out at specific parts.
I also hold a hypothesis that the plants drawn in the vms are there as information for the possibility of the food supply being disrupted by flooding or other apocalyptic situations. I see many of the featured plants as being ubiquitous and fast growing, that are easy to propagate, generable edible, or having multiple uses. In this case i would expect to see stinging nettle referenced due to its many uses as food, medicine, and cordage. It is a plant that occured in all three sections of the ecumene. The roots being as they are would make it a good stabilization plant to avoid erosion. As baneberry is poisonous, i see it as a less useful plant in comparison, although i realize it was used as medicine.