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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encelia farinosa | A.Gray ex Torr. | 2,904 | documented |
| Encelia californica | Nutt. | 1,307 | documented |
| Encelia actoni | Elmer | 249 | documented |
| Encelia frutescens | A.Gray | 145 | documented |
| Encelia virginensis | A.Nelson | 79 | documented |
| Encelia canescens | Lamarck | 56 | documented |
| Encelia ravenii | Wiggins | 28 | documented |
| Encelia densifolia | C.Clark & Kyhos | 25 | documented |
| Encelia ventorum | Brandegee | 17 | documented |
| Encelia asperifolia | (S.F.Blake) C.Clark & Kyhos | 15 | documented |
| Encelia resinifera | C.Clark | 15 | documented |
| Encelia stenophylla | Greene | 11 | documented |
| Encelia nutans | Eastw. | 8 | documented |
| Encelia palmeri | Vasey & Rose | 7 | documented |
| Encelia laciniata | Vasey & Rose | 4 | documented |
| Encelia actonii | Elmer | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Encelia conspersa | Benth. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Encelia halimifolia | Cav. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Encelia hispida | Andersson | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Encelia pilocarpa | Rubsy | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Encelia pilosiflora | S.F.Blake | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Encelia scaposa | A.Gray | 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.