Cassida denticollis
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Leaf beetle or ally |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Cassida denticollis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Suffrian, 1844 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Hubble, 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very scattered distribution and recent records only from a small number of sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Lack of evidence |
| 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: | Given the habitats of known populations, it is very likely that the creation of flower-rich habitat mosaics would benefit this species. |
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: | Can be confused with other species in the genus. Autoecology very poorly known |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of known and sites that offer seemingly suitable habitat
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Sites with suitable habitat
Comments: Species is inconspicuous and can be confused with other species in the genus. Perhaps make use of AI algorithms to define areas of potential occupation, but only when microhabitat preferences have been defined.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Population genetics of known populations
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: The important question to answer here is whether the existing populations have limited genetic variability.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Captive breeding for autecological research
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: Foodplants (Yarrow, Tansy and some other Asteraceae) are common and easily grown, so establishing a captive population(s) may not be too difficult. Important questions to try and answer with targeted research include: What do the larvae need? What are the dispersal abilities of the adults? How will existing populations be impacted by climate change.
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.