Anthicus angustatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Darkling beetle or ally |
| 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: | Anthicus angustatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Curtis, 1838 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Only a small number of recent records, but this is a small, easily overlooked species that is easily confused with its more common congeners. However, appears to have declined. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | WL in England but the balance of data strongly suggest this is an alien (Pearman D. 2013.) |
| 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: | All records have been from decaying plant material on large sandy beaches, habitats that are largely maintained and created by natural processes. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Only a small number of recent records, but this is a small, easily overlooked species that is easily confused with its more common congeners. Adults and larvae are thought to be associated with decaying plant material on bare sand, but nothing else known of ecology. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Define autecology of larvae and adults at known sites.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: What are micro-habitat preferences and diet of the adults and larvae? What are the dispersal abilities of the adults? Reliable identification of larvae may only be possible using molecular tools.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Retention of strandline seaweed resources on beaches
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: No very recent sites, so establishing areas to trial this approach may be difficult.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Raise awareness among stakeholders of the value of retaining strandline seaweed for biodiversity
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Work with partner organisation to raise the awareness of this habitat and reduce it wholesale destruction via beach cleaning operations.
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.