Dibolia cynoglossi
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: | Dibolia cynoglossi |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Koch, J.D.W., 1803) |
| 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: | 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: | The creation of habitat mosaics would likely 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: | A small and very easily overlooked species. Likely to be discovered/rediscovered at new/historical sites. Habitat preferences are fairly broad, but now seems to be restricted to two coastal shingle sites. |
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. 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: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Do existing populations have limited genetic variability and is their significant divergence between these populations? How do they compare to continental 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: This could be attempted when the microhabitat requirements of the adults and larvae have been identified. Rearing the species in captivity would also help to answer some of the other autecology questions: 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.