Aphanisticus emarginatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Soldier beetle or ally |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered/Possibly Extinct (Not Relevant) [CR(PE)(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: | Aphanisticus emarginatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Olivier, 1790) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander, 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Assessed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct) in the most recent red-list, though since then recognised from a specimen collected in 2013. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | It is not certain that this species is still extant in Britain, so it is impossible to be confident that it would be conserved by general management prescriptions. There is a lack of evidence and therefore a need to ascertain autecology and reasons for decline. |
| 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: | Given that the autecology is not understood and the species is likely to be highly localised if it does still occur, it is impossible to be certain that any general management prescription would certainly be beneficial, when it could just as easily be harmful (e.g. glade creation, increased woodland grazing). |
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: | Formerly known from long-established rush-pastures and damp rides in ancient woodlands. The larvae develop in the stalks of rushes, especially Juncus articulatus. The only recent record is from calcareous grassland. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Resurvey of Fontmell Down and historic localities.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Fontmell Down (Dorset). Sites with old records in England include Braunton Burrows (North Devon, 1931), Parkhurst Forest (Isle of Wight, 1903-1936), Longmoor Camp (North Hampshire, 1951) and Bagley Wood (Oxfordshire, 19th century).
Comments: Resurvey Fontmell Down to establish whether the species has a persistent population there and the ecology is not fully understood, or if the only recent record was a stray from elsewhere. Also whether any other populations have been overlooked as the species is probably most easily recorded by suction sampling
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Subject to the results of Action 1, document vegetation and habitat structure at occupied sites, and try and work out larval ecology
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Unknown
Comments: Site selection to be based on any success in Action 1
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: If the species cannot be refound in England, assess whether reintroduction is feasible: (i) Complete desk study to determine whether a reintroduction is feasible under current Natural England codes and guidance for England. (ii) Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management, based on fieldwork in Europe. (iii) Reintroduction if this is judged to be feasible based on the results of (i) and (ii).
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Unknown
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.