Drab Looper (Minoa murinata)
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: | Minoa murinata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Scopoli, 1763) |
| 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): LC and no long-term trend data available; short-term distribution decline of 76% (2000-2016) and has also suffered historical losses of distribution. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Requires rotational woodland management to maintain breeding habitat with good quantities of single larval host plant (Wood Spurge). |
| 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: | Creation of early successional habitat in woodland benefits this species in landscapes where populations remain present. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Good potential to recover former distribution if woodland management implemented at sufficient scale. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: The main barrier to recovery of this species is a lack of rotational management in many woodlands. Ensure a greater proportion of woodland rides and clearings is managed on rotation in occupied landscapes.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Length of required management rotation depends on speed of scrub regrowth, etc, and varies from site to site.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Populations are dynamic and regular status surveys are required. Undertake adult surveys at all known sites every 3-5 years; also survey any additional sites with Wood Spurge within occupied landscapes.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Current survey effort is mostly delivered by volunteers.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Annual monitoring for this species is currently at an early stage of development. Expand annual targeted monitoring to cover sufficient sites to enable production of an abundance trend, using the timed count method developed by Butterfly Conservation.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
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.