Paracromastigum

Accepted species 17 Documented here 1 Family Lepidoziaceae

Accepted species 17 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
Paracromastigum longiscyphum (Taylor) R.M.Schust. & J.J.Engel 13 documented
Paracromastigum denticulatum (Steph.) E.D.Cooper 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum drucei (R.M.Schust.) R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum dusenii (Steph.) R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum fiordlandiae R.M.Schust. & J.J.Engel 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum furcifolium (Steph.) R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum granatense (Gottsche) R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum macrostipum (Steph.) R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum micromera (Spruce) R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum microphyllum (R.M.Schust. ex J.J.Engel) E.D.Cooper 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum pachyrhizum (Nees) Fulford 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum ryszardii Váňa, Bedn.-Ochyra & Cykowska 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum stipulatum (Herzog) Fulford 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum subsimplex (Steph.) Fulford & J.Taylor 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum succulentum (Sim) J.J.Engel & G.L.Merr. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum tristanianum (R.M.Schust.) J.J.Engel & R.M.Schust. 0 below the evidence gate
Paracromastigum vastilobum (Steph.) J.J.Engel & G.L.Merr. 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.