Lulworth Skipper (Thymelicus acteon)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - butterfly > Butterfly |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Thymelicus acteon |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Rottemburg, 1775) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Fox & Dennis, 2021 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | GB Red List (Fox et al. 2022): NT. Restricted to less than 70 colonies on the south coast of Dorset. Statistically significant 76% decline in abundance since 1992 and a 38% short-term (10 year, 2010-2019) decline; 33% long term decline in distribution trend and 21% short-term decline (Fox et al. 2023) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Requires tall slightly grazed south facing slopes on the Dorset coast and inland chalk (Purbeck) ridge, requiring specialist liaison with the farming community for this unusual management |
| 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: | Requires very bespoke and targeted management. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | UKBMS has very limited coverage |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Expand standard transect monitoring to other parts of range where the species is regularly recorded to increase reliability of annual trends; develop reduced effort monitoring (single species transects or timed counts) with distribution and habitat assessments repeated at intervals (~10 years)
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Dorset chalk and Portland
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Increase advice and support to landowners, advisors, land managers on appropriate management practices as results of scientific research, in applying appropriate grazing management and rotational cutting where grazing is not possible and produce a popular leaflet/fact sheet to promote the significance of Tor Grass habitat management for this species.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Portland, Purbeck ridge and inland chalk
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Assess suitability (habitat and climate) of sites for assisted colonisation and the restoration potential of sites outside the distribution, along with scope to improve connectivity from the current distribution to encourage natural spread.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Climate change adaptation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Wessex downs principally in Dorset
Comments: Recent PhD research has identified site isolation as a factor in the species failure to respond to climate change as predicted. Could be a good example of assisted colonisation as climate resilience and adaptation
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.