Golden Hoverfly (Callicera spinolae)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Hoverfly |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Callicera spinolae |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Rondani, 1844 |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Ball & Morris, 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Seems to occur at very few sites (possibly as transitory populations at some) and is vulnerable to loss of mature trees and loss/deterioration of historic parkland. All of known UK population is within SE England. Some evidence of recent geographic expansion (e.g. into Bedfordshire and Peterborough). Vulnerable in Europe (IUCN). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Occupies just a few sites and is not known whether it will take advantage of habitat created elsewhere. Therefore specific protection of mature broadleaved trees with aerial rot holes (including Beech, Horse Chestnut, Poplar and Field Maple) used for larval development is critical; also good stands of blossoming Ivy for adult foraging in autumn. |
| 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: | Management is required to promote a continuity of plentiful mature broadleaved trees. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 5. Remedial action identified |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Possibly under-recorded, current knowledge largely based on casual recording. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Map suitable breeding trees through field surveys in and around hotspots e.g. West Cambridgeshire and adjacent Bedfordshire.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Collections of mature trees in East Anglia and East Midlands, notably Anglesey Abbey, Wimpole Hall, Gamlingay, Sandy, Sandy, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon and Peterborough areas.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Targeted in-person land management advice and support for landowners and tree managers on recognising and protecting key habitat features (mature trees and Ivy), and providing these into the future.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: East Anglia and East Midlands but perhaps especially West Cambridgeshire and adjacent Bedfordshire where modern records are concentrated, e.g. Anglesey Abbey, Wimpole Hall, Gamlingay, Sandy, Sandy, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon and Peterborough areas.
Comments: Over-zealous Ivy removal from trees and walls can be a problem at some sites e.g. Wimpole Hall; also over-zealous management (or removal) of mature trees.
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.