Stomatanthes

Accepted species 18 Documented here 1 Family Asteraceae

Accepted species 18 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
Stomatanthes africanus (Oliv. & Hiern) R.M.King & H.Rob. 8 documented
Stomatanthes corumbensis (B.L.Rob.) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes dentatus (Gardner) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes dyctiophyllus (DC.) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes helenae (Buscal. & Muschl.) Lisowski 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes hirsutus H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes loefgrenii (B.L.Rob.) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes meyeri R.M.King & H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes oblongifolius (Sch.Bip. ex Baker) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes oblongifolius (Baker) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes pernambucensis (B.L.Rob.) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes pinnatipartitus (Sch.Bip. ex Baker) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes polycephalus (Sch.Bip. ex B.L.Rob.) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes reticulatus Grossi & J.N.Nakaj. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes subcapitatus (Malme) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes trigonus (Gardner) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes warmingii (Baker) H.Rob. 0 below the evidence gate
Stomatanthes zambiensis R.M.King & H.Rob. 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.