Shimmering Ruby-tail (Chrysis fulgida)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - hymenopteran > Wasp |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Chrysis fulgida |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Linnaeus, 1761 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Shirt (1987) and Falk (1991) listed this species as endangered (RDB1). |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | A fairly precise complex of habitats is required. Its fate is tied to that of its host, the wasp Symmorphus crassicornis, which in turn is tied to its prey (the leaf beetle, Chrysomela populi) which feeds on Creeping Willow and Aspen. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Requires scrubby heathland or open wet woodland to provide willows/Aspen for the leaf beetle, which is preyed upon by Symmorphus crassicornis, the host of Chrysis fulgida. |
| 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: | The habitat requirements are too precise. Needs scrubby wet heathland with Creeping Willow or open woodland with Aspen. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Spreading to new sites will require the leaf beetle being present/colonising first, followed by the Symmorphus wasp being present/colonising second, followed by the Chrysis colonising once a large host population has established. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Revisit all post-1990 sites to determine if present.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Surrey heaths: including Horsell Common, Bagmoor Common, Mare Hill Common, Holmens Grove. South Wales, New Forest
Comments: The required predator/prey, host/cleptoparasite chains could easily break down if habitat conditions change. There is a need for rapid, up to date surveys and site assessments to better understand its current distribution.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Assess habitat quality of all previous sites no longer thought to support C. fulgida, including presence/absence of Symmorphus host, to identify remedial action/habitat enhancement measures required per site.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Surrey heaths, New Forest and Dorset heaths.
Comments: At former sites, are the habitat conditions suitable? Is the leaf beetle still present? Is Symmorphus crassicornis still present?
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Sympathetic management of previous sites known to still support its host and host's prey to promote survival, recovery and potential expansion.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Surrey heaths
Comments: Management work should aim to increase the population of host and the host's prey, to increase the chances of successful colonisation by C. fulgida
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.