Philonthus alpinus
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: | Philonthus alpinus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Eppelsheim, 1875 |
| 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: | Only two definite British records from the Eastleigh area, South Hampshire (vc11) and Sissinghurst, East Kent (vc15). This species is apparently dung associated and may be associated with wet unimproved neutral grassland. Its current status ecological requirements and threats are poorly understood. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Apparently very rare but almost nothing is known about its current status or conservation requirements. Targeted survey and autecological study would be required before any further conservation actions could be formulated if required. May be under-recorded. |
| 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: | Apparently very rare. Requirements not understood. No is a precautionary answer as it cannot be assumed that this species would benefit. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Extinction debt |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | If as rare as records suggest recovery potential may be low due to very low population sizes. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of its two known historic sites and any other sites of similar character, unimproved grasslands grazed by cattle and/or horses, in the surrounding area using dung sampling/pitfall trapping etc. to determine whether it persists and identify potential ecological requirements.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Eastleigh area, South Hampshire (vc11) and Sissinghurst, East Kent (vc15)
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological study of any extant populations identified to determine required conservation actions (if any).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Any extant populations identified in SRC Action 1.
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Implement management practices to encourage good habitat conditions as identified by action 2 on known sites if necessary - e.g. changes to grazing regime, cessation of use of veterinary treatments etc.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Eastleigh area, South Hampshire (vc11) and Sissinghurst, East Kent (vc15)
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.