Shining Pot Beetle (Cryptocephalus nitidulus)
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: | Cryptocephalus nitidulus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Fabricius, 1787 |
| 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: | Only known from a small number of sites and appears to have disappeared from several sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Piper and others have worked on this species, but more data is needed, especially on the habitat preferences of the adults and the efficacy of introductions via captive-reared adults. |
| 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 woodland edges, glades, rides and scrub. However, 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: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Species has been studied in some detail, but many autecological questions remain, especially whether it has a greater preference for the higher parts of mature host trees, rather than scrub as is often assumed. |
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: Use techniques to search higher parts of potentially suitable host-trees, e.g. cherry-pickers, long-pole nets, drones, ladders, binoculars from the ground to detect previously unknown populations and rediscover historical populations. The species may have a greater preference for the higher parts of host trees than was previously assumed. Perhaps make use of AI algorithms to define areas of potential occupation
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Translocations of adult beetles to sites with suitable habitat
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Tie in with surveys to confirm absence of species from donor sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Translocations of individuals to sites with similar characteristics
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Successful captive rearing has been achieved with this species. It is therefore possible to obtain large numbers of adults for subsequent introductions.
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.