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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Desmos chinensis | Lour. | 35 | documented |
| Desmos acutus | (Teijsm. & Binn.) I.M.Turner | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos chryseus | (Miq.) Merr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos cochinchinensis | Lour. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos costatus | (Miq.) Merr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos dinhensis | (Pierre ex Finet & Gagnep.) Merr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos dumosus | (Roxb.) Saff. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos dunalii | (Wall. ex Hook.f. & Thomson) Saff. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos elegans | (Thwaites) Saff. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos goezeanus | (F.Muell.) Jessup | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos grandifolius | (Finet & Gagnep.) C.Y.Wu ex P.T.Li | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos insolens | Ezedin | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos macrocarpus | Bân | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos pedunculosus | (A.DC.) Bân | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos polycarpus | Jessup | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos subbiglandulosus | (Miq.) Merr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos viridiflorus | Saff. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos wardianus | (F.M.Bailey) Jessup | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Desmos zeylanicus | (Hook.f. & Thomson) Saff. | 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.