Hazel Gloves (Hypocreopsis rhododendri)
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: | Hypocreopsis rhododendri |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Thaxt. |
| 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) - Mostly restricted to Cornwall and Devon, but with a few outliers (Cumbria) and an apparent increase of observations in very recent years. |
| 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: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Potentially always scarce, this species is a parasite on an uncommon host fungus which is mostly found in a fragmented habitat type (atlantic hazel wood) that has suffered large historical losses. There has been an increase in observations of this species in recent years which could suggest improved population size and distribution. However it may be due to the growth in popularity of amateur mycology/recording. |
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 the redlisting assessment status warrants it, this species could be translocated following the methodology trialled as part of an SRP project for H.lichenoides in 2024.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: An SRP reintroduction project trialling 5 translocation methods for this species began in 2025
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: If the redlisting assessment status warrants a conservation action, but the methodologies trialled as part of an SRP project for H.lichenoides in 2024 were unsuccessful, new methods including translocation of the host fungus (Hydnoporia corragata) should be trialled in suitable habitats.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 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
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.