Micropeplus tesserula
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Rove beetle (macrostaph) |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(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: | Micropeplus tesserula |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Curtis, 1828 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Boyce, 2022 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Rare and declining, no records since 2010. Modern (post-1979) English records are from Romsey, South Hampshire (vc11); Cowden Pound Pastures Nature Reserve, West Kent (vc16); Chobham Common and Richmond Park, Surrey (vc17); Windsor Forest, Berkshire (vc22); Redgrave & Lopham Fens and Wacton, East Norfolk (vc27); Elsworth Wood, Cambridgeshire (vc29); Cockayne Hatley Wood, Bedfordshire (vc30); Stonesby Quarry, Leicestershire (vc55); Leash Fen and Kedleston Park, Derbyshire (vc57); Hawk’s Wood, South-west Yorkshire (vc63); Foxglove Covert, North-west Yorkshire (vc65). Occurs in a wide range of open and wooded sites. Many records are from searching in burnt twigs and litter on the site of recent fires, though it has also been found on sappy tree stumps and on dead wood. Potentially under-recorded due to group, small size and rarely sampled habitat. Causes for decline not understood. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | There are no obvious specific actions to undertake to conserve this species. Records are widely distributed and do not seem to favour specific habitats. An apparent preference for burnt plant material does not lend itself to widespread management actions. |
| 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: | Does not seem to be overly tied to specific habitats or successional stages beyond an association with burnt plant material. |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.