Flea's Ear (Chlorencoelia versiformis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Fungus or lichen > fungus > Fungus |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Chlorencoelia versiformis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Pers.) J.R. Dixon |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Assessed as Endangered (2006) - All most recent records from South West England, but not recorded since 2006 |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Without evidence of the current national status of this species it will be very difficult to assess if there are any other species-specific actions required for its conservation; or if it is need of conservation at all. Also, there is potential for translocation to increase the distribution of this species |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The creation of deadwood resources (or at least ceasing the tidying and removal of deadwood resources) in mature broadleaf (particularly Ash) woodland habitat will provide habitat for this species |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Pathogen, hybridisation, INNS |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Saprophytic on large, fallen deadwood of broadleaf trees (especially Ash). The effects of Ash dieback could, in the short term provide an abundance of habitat/resource for this species - but the long term effect is likely to be an acute loss of habitat/resource. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: A national citizen science survey (potentially using the LAFF model) should be organised. The species suitably distinctive enough and found in accessible habitat. Organised by vice-county this would be far more efficient than scheduled surveys. Details of host trees, and level of wood decomposition should be recorded for each specimen found.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: There is a distinct possibility that this species is just under-recorded, which could be addressed by a national survey.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: An assessment of the necessary national species records should be made according to IUCN guidelines to provide a recognised redlist status criteria for this species.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: As no IUCN recognised assessment exists for this species, this action should be prioritised. A redlist assessment is likely to uncover more information and data on this species that will influence future recovery efforts
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: If Actions 1 and 2 prove a need for further conservation action, then translocation should be trialled. This should involve the capture and growth of cultured sample which could then be used to inoculate dowels. This method should be used to translocate to dead beech and oak (which it has been recorded on) as well as species like sycamore to see if it can thrive on alternate hosts to Ash.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: New Forest
Comments: If Actions 1 and 2 prove that the species is of Least concern, but is mostly dependent on Ash, then a translocation trial should still be considered to find alternate hosts that it can tolerate.
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.