Clay Fan-foot (Paracolax tristalis)
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: | Paracolax tristalis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Fabricius, 1794) |
| 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): NT; no long-term trend data available. Suffered severe historical declines and now reduced to around 15 populations in England. Not present elsewhere in GB. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Ecology poorly understood and requires research. Bespoke surveys also required to determine current status. There is some evidence that coppicing of Sweet Chestnut is beneficial but this also needs more research. |
| 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: | Not entirely clear but increasing the structural diversity of woodland, particularly overstood Sweet Chestnut coppice, may be beneficial. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 1. Taxonomy established |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Poor knowledge of current status and ecology. Some evidence of a positive response to Sweet Chestnut coppicing but research needed before management recommendations can be made. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Bespoke survey required in order to determine current status across range.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Undertake research into larval ecology. Previous attempts have failed to find the larvae in the wild. Related species feed on hanging dead leaves but larvae of this species could not be found in that situation. Knowledge of larval requirements is essential to understand habitat management required.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Undertake research into the effects of coppicing on populations.
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 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.