Coral Tooth (Hericium coralloides)
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: | Hericium coralloides |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Scop.) Pers. |
| 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 Near threatened (2006) and Endangered (2015) - A broad, southern distribution with a core population in the New Forest |
| 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. |
| 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: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | As a saprophyte of broadleaf wood. It should be a good candidate for translocation. However a main issue is the scarceness of its favoured host (mature Beech) and the loss of alternate hosts like mature Ash due to disease. |
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: If Action 1 confirms that this species is need of species specific conservation action then: This species is grown commercially, so best practice methods of culturing and translocation can be copied from the most successful commercial evidence and used to translocate this species to new host trees. It is important that native specimens are used as source material. The aim should be to expand the distribution of the species within its existing English range.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Follow up monitoring should be used to monitor the success of translocations. If successful, additional translocations should be implemented
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Taxonomy needs some work. Populations in UK and Scandanavia differ in ITS barcodes and habitat host. Population genetics needed to determine if this is one or two species as this has an impact of understanding of conservation status.
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
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.