Lithobius lapidicola
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > centipede > Centipede |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Lithobius (Lithobius) lapidicola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Meinert, 1872 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lee, 2015 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | In England populations are known from coastal locations in Kent, Essex and Suffolk, but there are other records are from hot houses. The number of records are small (17) and the outdoor populations may be at the northern range for the species. There is little evidence of decline though this is probably due to the paucity of records. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Not at risk of extinction in England |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
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: | The number of records of L. lapidicola is small and consequently its habits are poorly known |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of known sites to determine whether the species is still present and update the status of the species.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Known sites including Sandwich bay in Kent, and sites in Suffolk and Essex.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: If the species is found in Action 1 undertake autecological research to establish ecology and life history.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Sites identified in Action 1
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: DNA comparison between indoor and outdoor populations would be beneficial.
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 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.