Sphaerolobium

Accepted species 22 Documented here 6 Family Fabaceae

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
Sphaerolobium minus Labill. 56 documented
Sphaerolobium grandiflorum Benth. 16 documented
Sphaerolobium medium R.Br. 16 documented
Sphaerolobium rostratum R.Butcher 16 documented
Sphaerolobium alatum Benth. 8 documented
Sphaerolobium drummondii Turcz. 8 documented
Sphaerolobium vimineum Sm. 4 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium hygrophilum R.Butcher 1 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium pulchellum Meisn. 1 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium acanthos Crisp 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium benetectum R.Butcher 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium calcicola R.Butcher 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium daviesioides Turcz. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium fornicatum Benth. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium gracile Benth. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium linophyllum (Hügel ex Benth.) Benth. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium macranthum Meisn. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium nudiflorum (Meisn.) Benth. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium pubescens R.Butcher 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium racemulosum Benth. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium scabriusculum Meisn. 0 below the evidence gate
Sphaerolobium validum R.Butcher 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.