Polypleurum

Accepted species 19 Documented here 0 Family Podostemaceae

Accepted species 19 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
Polypleurum chinense B.Hua Chen & Miao Zhang 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum dichotomum (Gardner) J.B.Hall 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum disciforme C.J.Mathew & Nileena 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum elongatum (Gardner) J.B.Hall 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum erectum M.Kato 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum filifolium (Ramam. & J.Joseph) A.S.Rao & Hajra 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum insulare M.Kato & Koi 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum longicaule M.Kato 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum longifolium M.Kato 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum longistylosum M.Kato 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum munnarense Nagendran & Arekal 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum phuwuaense M.Kato 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum pluricostatum Koi & M.Kato 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum prachinburiense M.Kato & Koi 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum prostratum C.J.Mathew & Nileena 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum schmidtianum Warm. 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum sisaketense M.Kato & Koi 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum wallichii (R.Br. ex Griff.) Warm. 0 below the evidence gate
Polypleurum wongprasertii M.Kato 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.