Placodiscus

Accepted species 22 Documented here 0 Family Sapindaceae

Accepted species 22 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
Placodiscus amaniensis Radlk. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus angustifolius Radlk. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus angustifolius Radlk. ex Engl. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus attenuatus J.B.Hall 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus bancoensis Aubrév. & Pellegr. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus boya Aubrév. & Pellegr. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus bracteosus J.B.Hall 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus caudatus Pierre ex Radlk. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus caudatus Pierre ex Pellegr. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus gimbiensis Hauman 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus glandulosus Radlk. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus leptostachys Radlk. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus oblongifolius J.B.Hall 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus opacus Radlk. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus paniculatus Hauman 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus pedicellatus F.G.Davies 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus pseudostipularis Radlk 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus pynaertii De Wild. 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus resendeanus Exell & Mendonça 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus riparius Keay 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus splendidus Keay 0 below the evidence gate
Placodiscus turbinatus Radlk. 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.