Philonthus corruscus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Rove beetle (macrostaph) |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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 corruscus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Gravenhorst, 1802) |
| 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: | Very rare and apparently much declined, only a single post-1979 site in England: Kensham, East Gloucestershire (vc33). Pre-80 sites are distributed much more widely, with records from 13 vice counties ranging from South Cornwall (vc1) and East Kent (vc15) northwards as far as Herefordshire (vc37). Probably associated with patch habitats such as carrion and compost but with a relatively recent Welsh record from a Shingle ERS bar. |
| 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): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| 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 last known English site in Gloucestershire and any nearby sites of similar character using baited traps/pitfall trapping etc. to determine whether it persists and identify potential ecological requirements.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Kensham, East Gloucestershire (vc33)
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological study of any extant population identified to determine required conservation actions (if any).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Kensham, East Gloucestershire (vc33)
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Implement management practices to encourage good habitat conditions as identified by action 2 on known sites if necessary.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: Kensham, East Gloucestershire (vc33)
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.