Skeetle (Stenus longitarsis)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Rove beetle |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Stenus longitarsis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Thomson, C.G., 1851 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A very rare species showing a 66% or more decline in number of localities over last 40 years. Formerly recorded in East Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and east Norfolk pre 1969, and south Hampshire post-1970. The only modern records are from Test valley in 1974 and the New forest in 2000. Exact ecological requirements need further study. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Not recorded in England since 1964. |
| 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: | Very rare and restricted in distribution. Ecological requirements uncertain. Untargeted management may benefit this species but this cannot be assumed without further study. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of current, historic and nearby potential sites using pitfall trapping, vacuum sampling, litter sieving and hand-searching to assess current distribution and elucidate exact habitat requirements. Detailed description of habitat conditions in sampled areas is critical.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: New Forest SSSI, Test Valley, Rye Harbour
Comments: Survey in the New Forest in particular could be combined with survey for other priority invertebrates - e.g. the rove beetles Acylophorus glaberrimus and Erichsonius ytenensis.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Carry out IUCN status review.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Autecological study of populations identified by action 1 to better understand ecological requirements of this species.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: New Forest SSSI, Test Valley, Rye Harbour
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.