Pepper Pot (Myriostoma coliforme)
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: | Myriostoma coliforme |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Dicks.) Corda |
| 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 Critically Endangered (2006) - Previously assessed as extinct in UK (1992) - Restricted to East Anglia |
| 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: | This species was considered extinct in Uk for over 100 years until reobserved in 2006. Several local records have been made in that area since. Understanding the requirements of this species will help to inform a plan for suitable management of all dry sandy sites in Norfolk/Suffolk which could improve distribution of this species |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the autecology of the species, in particular assessing which habitat conditions exist at each known site, and what plants are there. Research should be aimed at understanding the preferred conditions or potential associations of this species so that habitat management guidance can be written up.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: East Anglia
Comments:
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.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Once the autecology/habitat requirements of this species are better understood (previous action), targeted management advice and support for existing sites, as well as suitable habitats near existing sites should be provided.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: East Anglia
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.