Nothaphoebe

Accepted species 21 Documented here 0 Family Lauraceae

Accepted species 21 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
Nothaphoebe annamensis A.Chev. ex H.Liu 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe condensa Ridl. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe coriacea (Kosterm.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe crassifolia (Ridl.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe elata (Kosterm.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe falcata Blume 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe foetida (Kosterm.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe gigaphylla (Kosterm.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe havilandii Gamble 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe helophila (Kosterm.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe heterophylla Merr. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe kingiana Gamble 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe leytensis (Elmer) Merr. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe macrocarpa (Blume) Meisn. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe magnifica (Kosterm.) Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe novoguineensis Kaneh. & Hatus. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe pachyphylla Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe pahangensis Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe sarawacensis Gamble 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe siamensis Kosterm. 0 below the evidence gate
Nothaphoebe umbelliflora (Blume) Blume 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.