Curimopsis setigera
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Pill 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: | Curimopsis setigera |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Illiger, 1798) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lane, 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Near Threatened. The 2021 red list states there are 10 locations and area of occupancy suggests a higher threat status might be appropriate, though with insufficient data to infer a decline. Now chiefly found along the coasts of south Wales, North Devon and south England from Dorset to East Kent, and at one inland locality in Buckinghamshire. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Declines suggest that general habitat management is not effective for conservation of this species, and there is a lack of understanding about species ecology to suggest better alternatives |
| 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 - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | A ground-dwelling beetle feeding on arocarpous mosses in dry sandy and chalky short turf grassland habitats. This description is too vague to be able to recommend potentially beneficial management. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management, using standardised methodology to establish baseline for national monitoring programme
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Braunton Burrows, Dungeness.
Comments: Vegetation and microhabitat preferences should be quantified
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Resurvey historic sites without recent records
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Site selection will have to be based on a desk-study if data are not available from a recording scheme
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure appropriate habitat management is implemented at all occupied sites. This should be based on the results of Actions 1, and may include ground disturbance.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Subject to the results of Action 1
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.