For long, Monotropsis odorata has been considered to be only species in the genus, despite several synonyms. In a more recent investigation Rose and Freudenstein (2014) argued for the species distinction of Monotropsis reynoldsiae, which differs morphometrically, phenologically, genetically and geographically from M. odorata. Other specimen, tagged with Monotropsis lehmaniae, are realized by Rose and Freudenstein (2014) as immature M. odotata species. Cryptophila pumila turned out to be based on inappropriate ovary sections by Wolf (1922) and is conspecific with M. odorata, as well. Based on the convincing data presented in Rose and Freudenstein (2014) we keep M. reynodsiae as a distinct species, in contrast to POWO and WFO, treating it as a synonym of M. odorata.
Monotropsis reynoldsiae (A. Gray) Heller