Thrypticus cuneatus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Long-legged fly |
| 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: | Thrypticus cuneatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Becker, 1917) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Drake, 2018 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | Spilt in 2023 into T. cuneatus and T. lichanus, thus meaning that some previous records of T. cuneatus are now erroneous. T. lichanus has more records since 2000 although this still only amounts to five. Drake 2023 suggests that T. lichanus should potentially share the same status as, Near Threatened B2a. |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The most modern record in England is from 2004 with very few prior to this in 1997 and 1986. Establishing whether a population still exists at least in previous known sites or where T. cuneatus has been found more recently would be the first step. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | If an existing population can be found in previous known areas (or adjacent to these) then targeted interventions may be possible. Surveying of known areas and specific habitats i.e wetlands with spike-rush (Eleocharis .spp). |
| 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
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 4. Autecology and pressures understood |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Relict or natural rarity |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Thrypticus flies are tiny and there may be missed records due to recorder effort and problems in identification. This is one of the most obvious of the species within the genus, so if pursued accurate identification is possible. The fly has only been recorded from three sites, Stow-cum-quy, Cambs, (TL511628) in 1986, Orton Pit SSSI, Cambs and Howlands Marsh, (TM1116) Essex. (Note that T. lichanus has also been found at Orton Pit SSSI). |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Tailored surveys of habitat in known localities to determine the population and species distribution, thus identifying whether T. cuneatus is present or absent so that further targeted actions can be implemented as necessary to protect the habitat.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Stow-cum-quy, Cambs, (TL511628) in 1986, Orton Pit SSSI, Cambs and Howlands Marsh, (TM1116) Essex
Comments: Targeted surveying to establish whether populations remain both within sites and if they have spread to adjacent areas of similar habitat. Distribution appears to always have been limited in England.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Where populations are discovered, implement habitat management the specific habitat the fly appears to need (based on outcomes of Action 1).
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Stow-cum-quy, Cambs, (TL511628) in 1986, Orton Pit SSSI, Cambs and Howlands Marsh, (TM1116) Essex
Comments: Management of sites to ensure high water levels are maintained and in areas with Eleocharis .sp a seasonal drawdown, to encourage growth and spread
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Re-assess Red list status of the species (due to recent taxonomic division and identification of T. lichanus) leading to even lower recorded population/distribution levels
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Stow-cum-quy, Cambs, (TL511628) in 1986, Orton Pit SSSI, Cambs and Howlands Marsh, (TM1116) Essex
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.