Cryptocephalus biguttatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Leaf 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: | Cryptocephalus biguttatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Scopoli, 1763) |
| 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: | Widely scattered populations and appears to have declined/disappeared from some locations. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | More data needed on the autecology of this species as this is one of the scarce Pot Beetle species that could not be found reliably or in sufficient numbers to allow intensive study. Distribution data confounded by similarity to one of the colour morphs of C. bipunctatus. |
| 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: | Possibly with the creation of wetland mosaics, although autecology needs to be better understood. Is the localised distribution of this species simply due to the poor dispersal abilities of the adults or narrow micro-habitat requirements of adults and larvae? |
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: | New populations likely to be discovered. Can be confused with a rare form of Cryptocephalus bipunctatus, which complicates surveying. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of sites with potentially 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 potentially suitable habitat
Comments: Focus on those areas with potentially suitable habitat that are within the bounds of the known historical range. Appears to be a relict species of sites with a long history of habitat continuity. 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: Commons and heaths of Sussex and Surrey
Comments: Do existing populations have limited genetic variability and is their significant divergence between these populations?
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Captive rearing of this species for the purposes of reintroductions and to understand more about its autecology
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Successful captive rearing has been achieved with other species in the genus and the requirements of the larvae of this species should be fairly easy to meet in captivity.
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.