Pilemostoma fastuosa
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Leaf beetle or ally |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Pilemostoma fastuosum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Schaller, 1783) |
| 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: | Historically widespread in southern England and south Wales with an old record from Lancashire. Has now declined to be scarce and localised. |
| 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: | Possibly, with the creation and management of calcareous grassland/woodland mosaics on sheltered, south-facing slopes |
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: | Extremely distinctive, but easily overlooked. Beyond hostplant associations, autoecology 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 distinctive, but inconspicuous. 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: Define autecology of larvae and adults at known sites and using captive 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: 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.
Key Action 3
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: This should be a follow-up to the autecology work. Important, as it will provide information on population size, population divergence, population viability as well as informing potential translocation strategies
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.