Purbeck Mason Wasp (Pseudepipona herrichii)
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: | Pseudepipona herrichii |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Saussure, 1855) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Listed as Vulnerable (RDB2) in Shirt (1987), and provisionally upgraded to Endangered (pRDB1) by Falk (1991) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This wasp has always had a very limited distribution i.e. Dorset Heaths. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Autecology studies have shown that the wasp requires a close juxtaposition of bare sandy ground with clay content for nesting, heathland rich in Bell Heather to support its prey moth and a water supply to assist with nest building. |
| 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: | Habitat requirements are a bit too specific. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 8. Species recovering |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Habitat creation work has been going on at selected sites in recent years. Support should be given to allow this to continue but no other specific interventions thought necessary. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Create and maintain high quality habitat at known sites.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Heathlands of south-east Dorset.
Comments: This species has been the subject of recovery work for some time now but clearly there is a need to maintain the impetus gained thus far, with an ongoing need to manage habitats, especially nesting sites that may be prone to being lost to vegetation cover.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Push out the boundaries of the known range by expanding habitat, and improve connectivity within its range.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Other (specify in comments)
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Suitable habitat beyond and within the current range.
Comments: This is likely to entail habitat creation and habitat management as currently implemented at its known sites. A stable population will need good connectivity over a large area of inter-connected heathland sites.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Remedial management on unsuitable sites within or close to known range.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Other (specify in comments)
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Degraded heathland sites within or close to the current known range.
Comments: This will entail habitat creation and management e.g. clearing scrub or conifer woodland, Bracken etc followed by management to create appropriate heathland swards and nesting sites.
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.