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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sorghastrum nutans | (L.) Nash | 1,844 | documented |
| Sorghastrum secundum | (Elliott) Nash | 139 | documented |
| Sorghastrum elliottii | (C.Mohr) Nash | 30 | documented |
| Sorghastrum setosum | (Griseb.) Hitchc. | 10 | documented |
| Sorghastrum pellitum | (Hack.) Parodi | 3 | documented |
| Sorghastrum balansae | (Hack.) Dávila | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum brunneum | Swallen | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum canescens | (Hack.) Pilg. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum chasae | Swallen | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum chaseae | Swallen | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum contractum | (Hack.) M.Kuhlm. & Kuhn | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum crassum | Renvoize | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum fuscescens | (Pilg.) Clayton | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum incompletum | (J.Presl) Nash | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum minarum | (Nees) Hitchc. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum nudipes | Nash | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum pogonostachyum | (Stapf) Clayton | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum pohlianum | Dávila, L.I.Cabrera & R.Lira | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum scaberrimum | (Nees) Herter | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum stipoides | (Kunth) Nash | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum tisserantii | Clayton | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Sorghastrum viride | Swallen | 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.