Margarinotus obscurus
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: | Margarinotus obscurus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Kugelann, 1792) |
| 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: | Only 10 locations since 1990 |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Records post 1980 confined to four hectads in two areas, on the Jurassic Coast from Branscome, Devon east to Eype, Dorset, and on the south coast of the Isle of Wight between Whale Chine and Blackgang Chine where this species is found near freshwater seepages on coastal grassy slopes and landslips. Ongoing records from both areas in most years up to the present day offer no strong evidence of continuing decline. Could be threatened by cliff stabilisation and sea defence work, current locations unlikely to be directly threatened so not a priority for recovery action at this time, but the situation should be monitored in case of any change or potential indirect impact from sea defence work elsewhere on the coast. |
| 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: | Yes, if this involved grazing animals in the absence of endectocides. Its precise breeding requirements are unknown so a mosaic of different swards heights and bare ground could be beneficial to allow a dung to fall in a variety of situations. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Implement year round low intensity cattle grazing at sites across the key landscapes. Do not use endectocides. In winter cattle should not be fed in silage, maize or soya since this affects the quality of the dung and its nutritional value to coprophagous invertebrate larvae.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Known sites should be sought from the Histeridae Recording Scheme and Local Environmental Records Centres
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Targeted non-lethal monitoring to assess population trends
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Known sites should be sought from the Histeridae Recording Scheme and Local Environmental Records Centres
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Produce a status review of England's dung and carrion invertebrate assemblage including the results of research into the impact of veterinarian livestock inputs on this fauna. This would benefit both this and many other TSRA species.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
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.