Dinoptera collaris
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Longhorn beetle |
| Red List Status: | Regionally Extinct (GB scale) (Not Relevant) [RE(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: | Dinoptera collaris |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander, 2019 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Regionally Extinct. In Britain Dinoptera collaris was primarily associated with ancient broadleaved woodlands under active coppice management, apparently favouring steep slopes on sandy soil. It has not been recorded since 1949. Most British records were in Kent, and from the Wyre Forest area. It seems to require well-lit trees and the extinction may be linked to the conversion of coppice to high forest after the abandonment of active coppicing, which results in increased canopy density and shading. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Little is known about its ecology although there is no evidence of a decline in Europe where it is widespread and common. It is an easily recognised, flower-visiting species and given that it has not been recorded even as a vagrant in 70 years, it may be unlikely to naturally recolonise Britain from the continent. |
| 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: | No |
| Justification: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Although there is published evidence, insufficient data are available to fully characterise the ecology of the beetle, in terms of the size, condition, situation and management of host trees, and flower visits by adults. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Complete desk study to determine whether a reintroduction is feasible under current Natural England codes and guidance for England
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Not applicable
Comments: This will probably need to be completed in tandem with Action 2
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: As this species is extinct in Britain, ecological studies would have to be based on fieldwork in Europe. This should document the size, condition, and situation of suitable dead wood.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Reintroduction if this is judged to be feasible based on the results of Actions 1 and 2.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments:
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.