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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diastema affine | Fritsch | 12 | documented |
| Diastema vexans | H.E.Moore | 7 | documented |
| Diastema racemiferum | Benth. | 2 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema calcicola | J.L.Clark & Moonlight | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema comiferum | (DC.) Benth. ex Walp. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema fimbratilobum | Moonlight & J.L.Clark | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema gymnoleucum | Gilli | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema hispidum | (DC.) Fritsch | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema kalbreyeri | Fritsch | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema latiflorum | Rusby | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema maculatum | (Poepp.) Benth. ex Walp. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema micranthum | Donn.Sm. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema purpurascens | Rusby | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema quinquevulnerum | Planch. & Linden | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema rupestre | Brandegee | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema scabrum | (Poepp.) Benth. ex Walp. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema sodiroanum | Fritsch | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema tenerrimum | (Poepp.) Benth. ex Walp. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema urticifolium | (Poepp.) Benth. ex Walp. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema weberbaueri | Fritsch | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Diastema williamsii | Rusby | 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.