Acmadenia teretifolia(Link) E.Phillips

WFO wfo-0000516771 Accepted WFO 2026-06 8 photographs CC BY / CC BY-SA

Plate 1 figs. a–h · 8 separate observations

Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by linkie
fig. a linkie, CC BY 4.0 / 2021-06-16 / obs. 138324697
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by James Deacon
fig. b James Deacon, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 137110380
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by Tony Rebelo
fig. c Tony Rebelo, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 31016170
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by Brian du Preez
fig. d Brian du Preez, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 71327857
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by Brian du Preez
fig. e Brian du Preez, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 67070096
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by Tony Rebelo
fig. f Tony Rebelo, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 16100847
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by Chris Vynbos
fig. g Chris Vynbos, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 53575000
Acmadenia teretifolia, photographed by Chris Vynbos
fig. h Chris Vynbos, CC BY-SA 4.0 / obs. 14798860

Every figure is a research-grade observation under CC0, CC BY or CC BY-SA, rehosted with the photographer’s name, the licence and the observation it came from. Photographs under a NonCommercial licence are excluded from this site and are never stored, which costs us a great many pictures and is not negotiable.

Also published as 4 synonyms

A synonym is not an error. It is a record of botanists disagreeing, in print, about where this plant belongs. Each of these was somebody’s considered answer.

  • Acmadenia obtusata Eckl. & Zeyh. ex Harv. & Sond.
  • Agathosma teretifolia G.Don
  • Diosma ferulacea Hort.Kew. ex Harv. & Sond.
  • Diosma teretifolia Hort.Angl. ex Link

Sourcesevery claim on this page

  1. World Flora Online Plant List. accepted name, authority, classification. CC0. Retrieved 2026-07-12.
  2. iNaturalist. photographs and flowering annotations, CC0 / CC BY / CC BY-SA only. per photograph. Retrieved 2026-06-27.

We publish what we can source and we say so when we cannot. This page has no care advice and no toxicity claim, because we do not yet have those from a source we can cite. It has no native range either: Kew's checklist does not cover this taxon.