The Queen's Executioner (Megapenthes lugens)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Click beetle |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Megapenthes lugens |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Redtenbacher, W., 1842) |
| 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: | Currently most often found at Windsor Forest and Great Park (Berkshire) with an additional recent record nearby at Silwood Park (Berkshire), and in the New Forest (Hampshire). No red-list assessment is available, although this is planned and so is excluded from the review actions. |
| 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): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Megapenthes lugens larvae develop in rotten wood within rot-holes in Beech trees, which has been described as damp, dark red, and with leathery flexibility. Elm was also previously important. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Create a UK DNA sequence, and primers to allow eDNA sampling.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Windsor Forest
Comments: To allow less invasive detection in saproxylic substrates. This can run in parallel with Action 2.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs document age structure for potential host veteran trees and future veterans, to determine whether there is an adequate rate of replacement. Also assess requirements for management of the veteran tree stock to reduce the risk of wind throw, by undertaking tree surgery to reduce the crown of excessive bough weighting.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Windsor Forest (Berkshire), the New Forest (Hampshire), and possibly Epping Forest (Essex)
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs, plant trees or promote natural regeneration on sites where there has been insufficient recruitment of younger trees. These are likely to be beech or ash, depending on the site.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Prioritisation is subject to assessment of tree age structure on all occupied sites
Comments: Either planting or natural regeneration should not be allowed to create crown competition or cast shade on existing veteran trees. If there is no space within a site to achieve this, then planting on adjacent land may also be a priority.
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.