Adenodolichos

Accepted species 22 Documented here 0 Family Fabaceae

Accepted species 22 in this genus

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.

SpeciesAuthority Usable photographsPage
Adenodolichos acutifoliolatus Verdc. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos baumii Harms 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos bequaertii De Wild. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos brevipetiolatus R.Wilczek 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos caeruleus R.Wilczek 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos exellii Torre 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos grandifoliolatus De Wild. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos harmsianus De Wild. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos helenae Buscal. & Muschl. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos huillensis Torre 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos kaessneri Harms 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos katangensis R.Wilczek 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos mendesii Torre 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos nanus N.E.Br. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos oblongifoliolatus R.Wilczek 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos pachyrhizus De Wild. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos paniculatus (Hua) Hutch. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos punctatus (Micheli) Harms 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos rhomboideus (O.Hoffm.) Harms 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos rupestris Verdc. 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos salvifoliolatus R.Wilczek 0 below the evidence gate
Adenodolichos upembaensis R.Wilczek 0 below the evidence gate

Why some species have no pagethe 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.

Sourcesevery claim on this page

  1. World Flora Online Plant List. Accepted names, authorities, classification. CC0. Retrieved 2026-07-12.
  2. iNaturalist. Photograph counts, restricted to CC0 / CC BY / CC BY-SA. Retrieved 2026-06-27.