A Fungus-gnat (Neoempheria lineola)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Fly |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Neoempheria lineola |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Meigen, 1818) |
| 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: | Very few records ever of this species in England. The last records being from 2021 in Herefordshire then 1986 & 2002 in the New Forest;1986 Gloucestershire, Cirencester Park and prior to this 1964 from Berkshire,Wytham Wood, older records exist from 1907, 1929 and 1939. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | The species seems to be naturally scarce, it is large and conspicious for a Fungus Gnat so should not have been overlooked by recorders. The New Forest is already protected and has management plans in place that should help the species if it is present. The area is also well recorded which may indicate that the species is genuinely rare. |
| 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: | This species would not benefit from untargeted management |
Species Assessment
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.