Woolly Rosette (Cotylidia pannosa)
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: | Cotylidia pannosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Sowerby) D.A. Reid |
| 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) - Restricted to just a few sites, but with a broad distribution. Not recorded in England since 2008. |
| 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. Additionally, the ecological requirements of, and threats to this species are not currently understood. |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | There is no evidence that an increase in the structural diversity of the habitat will directly benefit this species. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Found in soils of shady, mixed woodland, it is generally presumed to be a litter rotting species, though recent taxonomic work shows relation to moss associated spp (Rickenella etc.) which may be overlooked a s a habitat requirement. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
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.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the autecology of this species with studies designed to ascertain its resource requirements. (E.g. It has been recorded with Abies, Fagus and Picea but it is unknown whether it has a preference or reliance on any one of these. Neither is it clear whether it is a saprophyte of woody debris or leaf/needle litter, or if it has any association with the mosses it is generally found with.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: The species is known from less than 5 sites in the last 50 years, so all populations should be studied. Once the autecology is understood, it may be possible to ascertain the pressures on this species that are causing its decline.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Following Action 2, a review of what is known about the species should be carried out to identify why it has sharply declined since the 1960s.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments:
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.