Schendyla peyerimhoffi
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: | Schendyla peyerimhoffi |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Brölemann & Ribault, 1911 |
| 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: | A maritime species recorded from the south and south west coasts of England (as well as the coasts of Wales and Ireland). Low number of records probably a result of difficulty of sampling in shingle, rock habitats etc. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species/subspecies listed as two lines in TSRA, so disqualifying this duplicate here. See line for Hydroporus necopinatus for relevant actions. |
| 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: | It would appear that an un-modified coastline will be of the greatest benefit to 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: | Previous records are from around the high water mark, the splash zone and some are coastal (<1km from sea). Microsites include rock, stone and jetsam but most records do not give this information. |
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: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Known sites along the south western coasts
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake autecological research to establish life history of the species, based on sites established in Action 1
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Sites identified in Action 1
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Establish DNA sequence to ensure the identification is correct and that the morphological traits are valid. Compare with sequences from Brittany material.
Action targets: 1. Taxonomy established
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
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.