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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stilpnopappus apurensis | (V.M.Badillo) Aristeg. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus bullatus | Krasch. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus cearensis | Huber | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus emarginatus | Gardner | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus ferrugineus | Baker | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus glomeratus | Gardner | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus laiseae | R.Barros & R.Esteves | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus pantanalensis | H.Rob. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus pittieri | Gleason | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus pohlii | Baker | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus pohlii | Baker. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus pratensis | Mart. ex DC. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus regnellii | Baker | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus scaposus | DC. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus sellowianus | Krasch. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus semirianus | R.Esteves | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus speciosus | Baker | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus suffruticosus | Gardner | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus tomentosus | Mart. ex DC. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus trichospiroides | Mart. ex DC. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Stilpnopappus villosus | Mart. ex Baker | 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.