Cymindis macularis
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Ground 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: | Cymindis macularis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Mannerheim in Fischer von Waldheim, 1824 |
| 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: | Restricted to England with only two known post-1980 locations and not seen at least at one location since 2003. It is a threatened species, vulnerable to inappropriate land management and extrinsic factors such as nutrient deposition and climatic change. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely localised (perhaps only one site) and therefore vulnerable to inappropriate grassland and heathland management and extrinsic factors such as nutrient deposition and climatic change. The likelihood of broader habitat measures benefitting this species seems very remote given its rarity and it requires urgent 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: | Requires open, stony ground on dry sandy lichen heath and short grassland and thus vulnerable to changes in grassland management which result in dense, tall vegetation. |
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: Since the 1980s only recorded in the Brecks at Icklingham and Warren Lodge, Thetford.
Comments: Actions 1 and 2 are related.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Depending on the results of the autecological study and site management reviews restore suitable grassland or heathland management, perhaps by changes to grazing or vegetation control and soil-stripping to favour dry, open, short turf 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: Icklingham and Warren Lodge, Breckland
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: The most recently recorded location at Warren Lodge in the Brecks might offer a suitable donor population for reintroduction to more historical locations (e.g. Icklingham if the species is no longer present there).
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.