Hydroptila cornuta
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - caddis fly (Trichoptera) > Caddisfly |
| 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: | Hydroptila cornuta |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Mosely, 1922 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Wallace, 2016 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Inability to identify the larva means that its habitat requirements are not known. |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The last record was 1938 so this may be extinct. No records from old sites. Widely distributed but local in Ireland and the near continent. Finding modern sites would seem a priority. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | It can be presumed that once the habitat was known efforts would be made to enhance its amount at other sites hence the reason for a positive answer to this question. The species seems to have declined significantly but there is little known about its current distribution or any special biological reasons for any 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: | Yes |
| Justification: | As this was a widespread species it might well be favoured by a general habitat diversification but as we do not know its specific needs the answer must be only a theoretical yes. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The larval habitat is not known but it seems to be a riverine species. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Light trap and sweep for Hydroptilids at three past sites in mid July.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: R. Avon at Ringwood, River Thames at Hampton Court and River Waveney at Homersfield.
Comments: It is necessary to find if this species still occurs in England with finding adults as the best method available and if successful work can be undertaken to find its larvae and their habitat for possible management work.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake literature search and make email enquiries to see if this species has been recorded in eDNA surveys. If answer is yes, then method used could be translated to look for it at past sites.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Survey sites to locate larvae and ascertain microhabitat to be conserved
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: This action would only be contemplated if the species was located by action points 1 and 2
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.