Sitaris muralis
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: | Sitaris muralis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Forster, 1771) |
| 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 known from a small number of records in the South, although probably under-recorded and on the edge of its northern range here. Population very likely to expand with climate change. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Listed in the British Odonata Red Data List (Daguet et al., 2008) as Regionally Extinct. Within Britain, it has only been recorded breeding in England and had a limited presence. It's historic breeding population was small and localised to an 8km stretch of the Moors River in Dorset where it was recorded from 1820 to 1963. Habitat degradation led to the species’ extinction; its historic breeding site is now unsuitable. The English site was situated at the northern edge of its historic European range and its population was not significant to the species status on a global or European level. |
| 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: | It is likely that habitat mosaics etc would benefit its host bee species. This, in turn, would benefit the beetle. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A distinctive species, but very likely under-recorded |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Raise awareness among the public of this species as it's fairly large, distinctive and would be noticed by casual observers. Given the present distribution, other populations are probably to be discovered
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Partner with relevant organisations to highlight this species in apps and explore other channels to target casual observers
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Raise awareness of the importance of cob walls and other built structures as nesting sites for the host bees
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Target relevant stakeholders: home owners, builders and trade bodies to encourage the repair and restoration of cob walls and other built structures the host bee and other species use as nesting sites.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: What factors influence the survivorship of the beetles within the host bee colonies?
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Autecology studies of the beetles and their hosts, perhaps developing techniques using inspection nests
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.