Cryptocephalus querceti
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 querceti |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Suffrian, 1848 |
| 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 |
| 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 several of the scarce Pot Beetle species that could not be found reliably or in sufficient numbers to allow intensive study. Studies from Poland suggest that is a canopy species and the 'association' with low, epicormic growth may be due to sampling bias. |
| 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 better connectivity of existing sites |
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: | Small and easily overlooked and new/historical populations likely to be discovered/rediscovered. Data from Poland suggest this is a canopy species, lack of records may be a consequence of sampling bias, i.e. looking for it on the lower parts of its host trees |
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 and interception traps 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: Population genetics of known populations
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Do existing populations have limited genetic variability and is their significant divergence between these populations?
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: ≤ 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. 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.