Epierus comptus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Clown or False-clown beetle |
| 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: | Epierus comptus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Erichson, 1834 |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | Near Threatened. Discovered in 1980 and now recorded from Groveley Wood and Savernake Forest (Wiltshire), and in the New Forest (Hampshire) at Mark Ash Wood and Wooson's Wood, Broom Hill, and Mallard Wood. The discovery of new sites in recent years suggests a possible increase although data are limited. It has been suggested that this is a recently introduced species that is slowly increasing its range, although it is treated as a long-term native in the current red-list. Conservation is covered by veteran tree assessment and management for other species. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Known from England, Wales and Scotland. In England recorded from 5 widely scattered sites in Gloucestershire, West Norfolk, East Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Cornwall in the recent period. There are historic records from other southern counties and it appears to have declined, but several new sites have been discovered in recent years and its status is difficult to interpret. Although usually flightless and dependent on very wet condition, rendering populations vulnerable to local extinctions, Its minute size and cryptic habit in Sphagnum moss mean the species is easily overlooked and particularly susceptible to underrecording. Most sites where it occurs are well established and stable, supporting other rare species. On this basis the species does not seem to be a priority for recovery actions at the current time. |
| 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
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.