Mastigobryum

Accepted species 23 Documented here 0 Family Lepidoziaceae

Accepted species 23 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
Mastigobryum aberrans Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum asperum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum deningeri Herzog 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum dentistipulum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum everettii Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum karstenii Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum ledermannii Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum londbergii Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum longifolium Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum minutitextum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum multidens Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum muscicola Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum nigricans Herzog 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum nipuranum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum palmicola Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum rajanum Herzog 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum ribehanum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum ruficaule Beauverd 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum schraderbergii Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum squamulistipum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum subhyalinum Steph. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum venezuelanum Molk. 0 below the evidence gate
Mastigobryum vermiculare Herzog 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.