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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hexasepalum teres | (Walter) J.H.Kirkbr. | 661 | documented |
| Hexasepalum radulum | (Willd.) Delprete & J.H.Kirkbr. | 5 | documented |
| Hexasepalum gardneri | (K.Schum.) J.H.Kirkbr. & Delprete | 4 | documented |
| Hexasepalum angustifolium | Bartl. ex DC. | 2 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum apiculatum | (Willd.) Delprete & J.H.Kirkbr. | 2 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum domingense | (DC.) Cabaña Fader & R.M.Salas | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum lippioides | (Griseb.) J.H.Kirkbr. & Delprete | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum mello-barretoi | (Standl.) J.H.Kirkbr. & Delprete | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum nordestinum | Cabaña Fader & E.B.Souza | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum rosmarinifolium | (Pohl ex DC.) Delprete & J.H.Kirkbr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum sarmentosum | (Sw.) Delprete & J.H.Kirkbr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum scandens | (Sw.) J.H.Kirkbr. & Delprete | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum serrulatum | (P.Beauv.) J.H.Kirkbr. & Delprete | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum vaginale | (Benth.) Cabaña Fader & Dessein | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Hexasepalum zappiae | E.L.Cabral & Cabaña Fader | 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.