Acritus homoeopathicus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Clown or False-clown beetle |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(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: | Acritus homoeopathicus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Wollaston, 1857 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lane, 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | In decline, IUCN categories A2c: B2a,b(ii),(iv). No evidence of change since review. Only known from three sites post 2000 |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Appears never to have been common in England, since there is no particular evidence of a recent decline not considered a priority for recovery action at this time. In coastal dunes and more rarely on sandy sites inland. |
| 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | Coppicing of woodland on a landscape scale with associated bonfire sites could benefit Acritus, although its flight capability is unknown. It is reported in pitfall trap samples, but not flight-interception trap samples of investigations into pyrophilous coleoptera. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Coleopterists are fairly rare and do not tend to investigate burnt ground very often so it might be more widespread, however it's distribution has always been very local since it's discovery in 1937. Acritus' recovery potential may be dependent on its dispersal ability which is likely quite limited. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of fire sites in its known sites to establish in-site distribution; monitor new fire sites to investigate dispersal capacity and the length of time a bonfire site is useful for.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Blean Wood, Thornden Wood
Comments: Action 1 and 2 to run concurrently
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Establish bonfire sites as part of routine woodland management at Acritus' known sites. Maintain the ashes and partially burnt branches in place. Do not bury ashes or rake burnt ground to allow fungal hyphae to develop. Avoid the use of accelerants.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: 3 sites with post 2000 records: Blean and Thornden Woods, Canterbury, and Silcock's Wood, St. Michael's
Comments: Action linked to research in action 1
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Apply lessons learned from Actions 1 and 2 to other sites with post 1990 Acritus records
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Consult Histeroidea recording scheme, Kent, Sussex and Surrey LRC
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.