Barred Tooth-striped (Trichopteryx polycommata)
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: | Trichopteryx polycommata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775) |
| 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; no long-term trend data available. Severe historic decline in distribution in southern England, populations are now fragmented. Threatened by Ash Dieback fungus in northern England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Threatened by Ash Dieback in northern England (and Scotland), where the moth primarily uses Ash as a host plant (as opposed to Wild Privet in the south). Requires efforts to determine recovery solutions. |
| 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: | In southern England, management to increase habitat mosaics at calcareous sites would likely benefit the host plant Wild Privet and may lead to colonisation by the moth. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Pathogen, hybridisation, INNS |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Ash Dieback threat may be difficult to mitigate; trialling of solutions is required. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: The moth is largely dependent on Ash as a larval host plant in northern England, but uses Wild Privet further south. Trials in recent years in the Yorkshire Dales and Morecambe Bay have involved growing and planting out Wild Privet at sites which lack the plant. Evaluate the establishment of these Wild Privet plantings and whether they are used by the moth (through larval surveys).
Action targets: 6. Recovery solutions trialled
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Grass Wood, Halecat Wood
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Subject to the success of Action 1 (following evaluation), establish Wild Privet plantings at additional sites where the moth currently uses Ash as a host plant. Requires assessment of the appropriateness of introducing Wild Privet on a site by site basis.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat creation
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Sites in Yorkshire Dales and Morecambe Bay
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Regular surveys are required to determine the impacts of Ash Dieback on the moth in northern England. Maintain up to date status information through targeted larval/adult surveys at all known sites in northern England every 3-5 years, as well as annual surveys at 5-10 key sites. Also survey key sites in southern England every 3-5 years.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Sites within landscapes in northern England: Morecambe Bay and Yorkshire Dales.
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.