Gaga

Accepted species 19 Documented here 2 Family Pteridaceae

Accepted species 19 in this genus

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.

SpeciesAuthority Usable photographsPage
Gaga kaulfussii (Kunze) Fay W.Li & Windham 32 documented
Gaga marginata (Kunth) Fay W.Li & Windham 5 documented
Gaga hintoniorum (Mendenh. & G.L.Nesom) Fay W.Li & Windham 1 below the evidence gate
Gaga angustifolia (Kunth) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga apiacea (Mickel) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga arizonica (Maxon) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga chaerophylla (M.Martens & Galeotti) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga complanata (A.R.Sm.) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga cuneata (Link) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga decomposita (M.Martens & Galeotti) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga decurrens (Mickel) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga germanotta Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga harrisii (Maxon) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga hirsuta (Link) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga lerstenii (Mickel & Beitel) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga membranacea (Davenp.) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga monstraparva Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga pellaeopsis (Mickel) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate
Gaga purpusii (T.Reeves) Fay W.Li & Windham 0 below the evidence gate

Why some species have no pagethe 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.

Sourcesevery claim on this page

  1. World Flora Online Plant List. Accepted names, authorities, classification. CC0. Retrieved 2026-07-12.
  2. iNaturalist. Photograph counts, restricted to CC0 / CC BY / CC BY-SA. Retrieved 2026-06-27.