Fissidens tayloriiMüll.Hal.

WFO wfo-0001181876 Accepted WFO 2026-06 4 photographs CC BY

Plate 1 figs. a–d · 1 observation

This species has been photographed under an open licence only 1 time, so some figures below are different views of the same plant, taken on the same day, rather than different individuals. They are usually different parts of it: the leaf, the flower, the bark.

Fissidens taylorii, photographed by Em Lamond
fig. a Em Lamond, CC BY 4.0 / 2020-08-23 / obs. 91416151

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 18 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.

  • Anacalypta stevensii R.Br.bis
  • Fissidens basilaris Müll.Hal. & Hampe
  • Fissidens brevifolius Hook.f. & Wilson
  • Fissidens brevifolius var. floribundus Wilson
  • Fissidens caespitulosus Müll.Hal. ex Broth.
  • Fissidens elamellosus Müll.Hal. & Hampe
  • Fissidens epiphytus Allison
  • Fissidens geheebii Müll.Hal.
  • Fissidens gillianus Catches. & I.G.Stone
  • Fissidens macrodus Hampe
  • Fissidens paraguensis Broth.
  • Fissidens pseudoexilis Thér.
  • Fissidens pygmaeus Taylor
  • Fissidens ramiger Beckett
  • Fissidens taylorii var. sainsburianus Allison
  • Pottia parisii Warnst.
  • Pottia stevensii (R.Br.bis) Paris
  • Sainsburia novae-zealandiae Dixon

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.