Ptinus palliatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - beetle (Coleoptera) > Wood boring beetle or ally |
| 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: | Ptinus palliatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Perris, 1847 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Alexander, 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Vulnerable. Records are concentrated in the south and east of England, but with a thin scatter westwards into Herefordshire, Glamorgan and Somerset. There are only old records from the north-east of England. Modern records are from just a few localities: Grimsthorpe Park, Lincolnshire (2013), Windsor Great Park (2006), Croome Park, Worcestershire (1996 & 2006), Felbrigg Great Wood, Norfolk (2003), Ickworth Park, Suffolk (1999 & 2003), Field Farm in Lower Kennet floodplain of Berkshire (2003), and Peper Harrow Park, Surrey (2000). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Minimum intervention management will not provide conditions suitable for the development of suitable host trees |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
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: | In old dry timber of oak, less often beech and other woody broad-leaves, and from old fence-posts, both in ancient wood-pasture and in exposed places by coasts. It lives in early-stage white-rotten wood, requiring at least two years for its development; it feeds on larval and pupal skins in the galleries of other insects inhabiting the wood; the larvae dig galleries themselves and devour the wood. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Research to characterise the ecology of the beetle, in terms of the species, size, condition, situation and management of host trees
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Grimsthorpe Park (Lincolnshire), Windsor Great Park (Berkshire), Croome Park (Worcestershire), Felbrigg Great Wood (Norfolk), Ickworth Park (Suffolk), Field Farm in the Lower Kennet floodplain (Berkshire), and Peper Harrow Park (Surrey).
Comments: Although there is published evidence about microhabitat preferences, insufficient data are available to fully characterise the ecology of the beetle, in terms of the size, condition, and situation of suitable dead wood.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs document age structure for potential host veteran trees and future veterans, to determine whether there is an adequate rate of replacement. Also assess requirements for management of the veteran tree stock to reduce the risk of wind throw, by undertaking tree surgery to reduce the crown of excessive bough weighting.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: To be determined based on the results of Action 1
Comments: The conservation of saproxylic invertebrates relies on continuity in the availability of dead wood resources, which can take centuries to develop, so there is a need to identify if there is insufficient recruitment of younger trees at sites where the species occurs. In general the loss of veteran trees at protected sites and in the wider landscape exceeds rates of recruitment.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: At sites where the species occurs, plant trees or promote natural regeneration where there has been insufficient recruitment of younger trees.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Prioritisation is subject to assessment of tree age structure on all occupied sites
Comments: Either planting or natural regeneration should not be allowed to create crown competition or cast shade on existing veteran trees. If there is no space within a site to achieve this, then planting on adjacent land may also be a priority.
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.