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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pearcea schimpfii | Mansf. | 7 | documented |
| Pearcea reticulata | (Fritsch) L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 4 | documented |
| Pearcea sprucei | (Britton ex Rusby) L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 1 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea abunda | (Wiehler) L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea bella | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea bilabiata | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea cordata | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea fuscicalyx | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea glabrata | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea gracilis | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea grandifolia | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea hispidissima | (Wiehler) L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea hypocyrtiflora | (Hook.f.) Regel | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea intermedia | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea lutea | J.L.Clark & H.Garzón | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea pileifolia | J.L.Clark & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea purpurea | (Poepp.) L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea rhodotricha | (Cuatrec.) L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Pearcea strigosa | L.P.Kvist & L.E.Skog | 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.