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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Niphogeton josei | Mathias & Constance | 8 | documented |
| Niphogeton azorelloides | Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton boliviana | Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton chirripoi | (Suess.) Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton cleefii | Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton colombiana | Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton dissecta | J.F.Macbr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton fruticosa | Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton glaucescens | (Kunth) J.F.Macbr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton kalbreyeri | (H.Wolff) Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton killipiana | Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton lingula | (Wedd.) Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton magna | J.F.Macbr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton pusilla | (Wedd.) Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton scaber | (H.Wolff) J.F.Macbr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton sprucei | (H.Wolff) Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton stricta | (H.Wolff) Mathias & Constance | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Niphogeton ternata | (Willd. ex Schult.) Mathias & Constance | 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.