Paromalus parallelepipedus
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: | Paromalus parallelepipedus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Herbst, 1791) |
| 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: | Vulnerable based on restricted area of occupancy or number of locations with a plausible future threat |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Only known from the Kent coast on the Isle of Sheppey, Isle of Grain and at Deal; all records are historic and span the period 1853 to 1952. The final British record was from the Isle of Grain. It is a habitat specialist favouring the margins of brackish and saline lagoons, a habitat which has received considerable survey effort since the addition of Anisodactylus poeciloides to the Section 41 list in 1994. On this basis the species is very likely to be extinct in Britain and is not a suitable candidate for recovery action. |
| 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 - Policy conflict (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | This species inhabits woodland where it has been found under bark of conifers. It is a predator of sub-cortical bark beetle larvae (Curculionidae, Scolytinae). The recent British records concern specimens found under bark, mainly on the upper-side of a fallen Scot's Pine tree and also on cut logs resulting from felling operations in conifer plantations. One old record from the New Forest was described as 'in black powdery fungus on fir stumps'. It may be difficult to negotiate suitable management with current silviculture methods, as these seek to deter infestation of living trees with bark beetle and may also promote the removal of dead wood. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted searches should be undertaken to discover the extent of the species distribution in Breckland.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Suffolk and Norfolk Breckland conifer plantations
Comments: Although there is published evidence about microhabitat preferences, insufficient data are available to fully characterise the ecology of the beetle, in terms of the size, condition, and situation of suitable dead wood. The larvae have apparently not been found, although it is likely to be a predator under bark, where most adults have been recorded. Inhabited trees and logs should be left in-situ. Since its prey is highly mobile it suggest the beetle must either follow the prey or require enough bark beetle larval substrate for it to easily move within its woodland. The strategies are quite different and working out which applies seems essential.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Provide advice to ensure site managers are aware of species presence (update them with Action 1 results) and its vulnerability. Also experiments should be undertaken with provision of logs and snags to ensure a continuous supply of suitable dead wood, and could be attempted at unoccupied sites to test dispersal capacity of the species
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: To be determined based on the results of Action 1
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Forest Research already run a network of flight interception traps to detect the spread of the coniferous pest beetle Ips typographicus. The by-catch samples from these traps should be examined for Paromalus parallelepipedus to better understand its distribution. Analysis of Kent samples has produced new records of this species.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Paromalus parallelepipedus known sites in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire, Kent and Berkshire
Comments: In Kent a volunteer coleopterist takes the by-catch samples. Though it is very time consuming work. Paromalus parallelepipedus is quite distinctive under the microscope so could possibly be picked out by the Forest Research entomologists while they sort the samples for Ips typographicus
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.