Sweet Greyling (Tephrocybe osmophora)
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: | Lyophyllum osmophorum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (E.-J. Gilbert) E. Ludw. |
| 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) Known from only 1 (2?) site in England, but not recorded for 10 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: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A litter rotter, described from mixed woodland with Fagus , Larix, Pinus and others. The only UK records are with fagus litter. |
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: Mortimer Forest and woods near Mickleham
Comments: As no IUCN recognised assessment exists for this species, this action should be prioritised.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Survey area surrounding the 1 or 2 known UK site(s) and liaise with site managers.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment SSSI
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: eDNA to detect it this species at it known location to see if still present
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment SSSI (Norbury Park area)
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.