Dark Bordered Beauty (Epione vespertaria)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - moth > Moth |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Epione vespertaria |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1767) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| 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. 2019): EN. Restricted to a single site in England (as well as <5 sites in Scotland). At the English site the population is declining and highly vulnerable. It is therefore one of the most endangered moths in England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | In England it is restricted to a single host plant (Creeping Willow) which is susceptible to livestock grazing. Requires regular interventions (e.g. creation of grazing exclosures) to enable the population to persist. |
| 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: | Very restricted range and unlikely to disperse far from sole remaining site. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Recovery potential limited by isolation of remaining population and limited areas of breeding habitat in the wider landscape. Reintroduction proposals currently at an early stage and feasibility of this uncertain. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Ensure habitat resource at remaining site is maintained and expanded through appropriate habitat measures. This may require further protection of Creeping Willow plants in exclosures and planting out of additional plants.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Strensall Common (Yorkshire)
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Research needed to improve our understanding of which elements of management for this species are effective; specifically, comparison of the distribution of the moth across the single remaining site in relation to habitat and management undertaken.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Strensall Common
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: The moth formerly occurred at a number of other sites in north-east England; these are distant from the remaining site. Investigate the potential for reintroduction to former sites; requires habitat assessments as part of a feasibility study.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Reintroduction project for this species underway in Scotland; use the results of this project to inform any reintroduction work in England (though note that the moth has a different host plant in Scotland).
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.