Every accepted species in the genus is listed. A name links to its page when we hold at least three commercially licensed photographs of it. Where we do not, the row shows how many we actually found, which is usually none.
| Species | Authority | Usable photographs | Page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acritopappus catolesensis | D.J.N.Hind & Bautista | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus confertus | (Gardner) R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus connatifolius | (Soar.Nunes) R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus diamantinicus | Bautista, S.Ortiz & Rodr.Oubiña | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus hagei | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus harleyi | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus heterolepis | (Baker) R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus irwinii | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus longifolius | (Gardner) R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus micropappus | (Baker) R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus morii | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus pintoi | Bautista & D.J.N.Hind | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus prunifolius | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus santosii | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus subtomentosus | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Acritopappus teixeirae | R.M.King & H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
This site is commercial, so it can only publish photographs licensed for commercial use. Roughly three quarters of the photographs on iNaturalist are CC BY-NC, which excludes them. A species needs at least three usable photographs before we will build it a page, because a page with one picture and no traits tells you nothing you could not get from a search result, and generating hundreds of thousands of those is precisely the practice that got the previous version of this site deleted.
So the species above without a link are not errors and they are not omissions. They are real, accepted plants that we cannot yet document to the standard we hold ourselves to, and the count in the photographs column is exactly how far short we fall.