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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dicranolepis angolensis | S.Moore | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis baertsiana | De Wild. & T.Durand | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis brixhei | De Wild. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis buchholzii | Engl. & Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis cerasifera | Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis disticha | Planch. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis glandulosa | H.Pearson | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis grandiflora | Engl. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis incisa | A.Robyns | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis laciniata | Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis persei | Cummins | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis polygaloides | Gilg ex H.Pearson | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis pubescens | H.Pearson | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis pulcherrima | Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis pusilla | Aymonin | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis pyramidalis | Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis soyauxii | Engl. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis thomensis | Engl. & Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis usambarica | Gilg | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Dicranolepis vestita | Engl. | 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.