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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caryodaphnopsis baviensis | (Lecomte) Airy Shaw | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis bilocellata | van der Werff & Dao | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis burgeri | N.Zamora & Pùveda | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis cogolloi | van der Werff | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis fieldii | Aymard & G.A.Romero | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis fosteri | van der Werff | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis henryi | Airy Shaw | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis inaequalis | (A.C.Sm.) van der Werff & H.G.Richt. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis laotica | Airy Shaw | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis latifolia | W.T.Wang | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis malipoensis | Bing Liu & Y.Yang | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis metallica | Kosterm. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis parviflora | van der Werff | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis poilanei | Kosterm. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis quanbaensis | van der Werff & Dao | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis theobromifolia | (A.H.Gentry) van der Werff & H.G.Richt. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis tomentosa | van der Werff | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Caryodaphnopsis tonkinensis | (Lecomte) Airy Shaw | 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.