Lophocolea fragrans(Moris & De Not.) Gottsche, Lindenb. & Nees

WFO wfo-0001202677 Accepted WFO 2026-06 6 photographs CC BY

Plate 1 figs. a–f · 2 observations

This species has been photographed under an open licence only 2 times, 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.

Lophocolea fragrans, photographed by George Greiff
fig. a George Greiff, CC BY 4.0 / 2020-08-29 / obs. 92611521

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 10 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.

  • Chiloscyphus canariensis Bryhn
  • Chiloscyphus fragrans (Moris & De Not.) J.J.Engel & R.M.Schust.
  • Chiloscyphus hirticalyx (Steph.) J.J.Engel & R.M.Schust.
  • Jungermannia fragrans Moris & De Not.
  • Lophocolea fragrans f. fragrans
  • Lophocolea fragrans var. capensis S.W.Arnell
  • Lophocolea fragrans var. fragrans
  • Lophocolea frappieri Steph.
  • Lophocolea hirticalyx Steph.
  • Lophocolea spicata Taylor ex Gottsche, Lindenb. & Nees

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.