Cymindis axillaris
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Ground 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: | Cymindis axillaris |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Fabricius, 1794) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Telfer, 2016 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Almost entirely restricted to England apart one location in South Wales. A very localised species which has undergone a significant decline in England which seems to be continuing, with only four known post-2000 English locations. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A very localised species which might still be declining and is potentially threatened by climate change effects and changes to grassland management. Given potential ongoing declines and very few known locations this species requires targeted management and site protection. |
| 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): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Extinction debt |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Under stones and at plant roots in dry grassland and heaths; often coastal but recently mainly inland. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Review historical and current grassland/heathland management at existing locations and undertake literature reviews to characterise the range of micro-habitats within which it is found, particularly relating to the nature of suitable vegetation structure and stony substrates. The reviews should help identify the management requirements of optimal habitats, as well as the pressures which might result in further declines, such a eutrophication and increased risk of uncontrolled fires.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Winterton Dunes, Rye Harbour, Landguard Point and Isle of Portland.
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are related.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Following results of autecological study and site management reviews restore suitable grassland or heathland management, perhaps by changes to grazing or by vegetation control and soil-stripping and creating scrapes to favour dry, open conditions appropriate for this species.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Winterton Dunes, Rye Harbour, Landguard Point and Isle of Portland.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Subject to the findings of the autecological review assess potential for re-introduction to historical locations using the most robust existing populations as a donor source following the introduction of suitable management. Consider ecological requirements of the species, suitability of site (e.g. subject to ongoing threats and/or climate change effects), timing of release and the need for ongoing habitat management.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Most recently known locations (e.g. Winterton, Rye Harbour) could provide donor populations for older locations where the species is no longer present (Snettisham and Thetford Warren in Norfolk, Risby Warren, North Lincs).
Comments: No information could be found on the feasibility of such re-introductions nor the techniques necessary for success.
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.