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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uvariodendron angustifolium | (Engl. & Diels) R.E.Fr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron anisatum | Verdc. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron calophyllum | R.E.Fr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron citriodorum | (Le Thomas) Dagallier & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron connivens | (Benth.) R.E.Fr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron dzomboense | Dagallier, Q.Luke & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron fuscum | (Benth.) R.E.Fr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron gorgonis | Verdc. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron kimbozaense | Dagallier & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron kirkii | Verdc. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron mbagoi | Dagallier & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron molundense | (Diels) R.E.Fr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron mossambicense | Robson ex Dagallier & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron occidentale | Le Thomas | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron pilosicarpum | Dagallier & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron pycnophyllum | (Diels) R.E.Fr. | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron schmidtii | Q.Luke, Dagallier & Couvreur | 0 | below the evidence gate |
| Uvariodendron usambarense | R.E.Fr. | 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.