Phantom Hoverfly (Doros profuges)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Hoverfly |
| Red List Status: | Near Threatened (Not Relevant) [NT(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: | Doros profuges |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Harris, [1780]) |
| 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: | Very scarce with modern records confined to a relatively small number of chalk downland sites in southern England (mainly within Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey) plus a limestone site in the southern Lakes. Some evidence of a long term decrease/extinction in other areas, though this large and unmistakeable hoverfly has a habit of turning up in unexpected places (but possibly as a vagrant rather than long-term breeder). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Poor understanding of its specific needs beyond a strong association with chalk downland, and a likely association of its larvae with ant-attended root aphids (though specific ant associations do not seem to be known - Lasius fuliginosus has been suggested but not proven and the distributions of the ant and hoverfly do not coincide particularly strongly). |
| 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: | It clearly likes large areas of unimproved chalk grassland, especially downland habitat mosaics where some scrub and bramble is present alongside shorter grass swards. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Needs targeted surveying/monitoring at its known hotspots. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Specific targeted surveying/monitoring in its key area to investigate its current status (to feed into a revision of the Red List) the extent of populations and whether there are specific habitat needs.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Chalk downland of Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey plus NORTHERN LANCASHIRE
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Understanding the life history and likely aphid host remains a knowledge gap that needs filling, despite the difficulty in achieving it.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Chalk downland of Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey plus NORTHERN LANCASHIRE
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.