Orange-horned Green Colonel (Odontomyia angulata)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > insect - true fly (Diptera) > Soldier fly or ally |
| 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: | Odontomyia angulata |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Panzer, [1798]) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Drake, 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Historical records Somerset but none since 1951, records from Cothill fen Berkshire (2017, 2022) and a spate of records from Norfolk in 2022 that coincides with a Dipterist's Forum summer field meeting. There are a further three Norfolk records from 2023/24. This could indicate that populations exist but the areas are not being surveyed as the Norfolk examples have highlighted previously unreported sites. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Within known sites of high quality fen and pingos the fly is still considered rare and selective, with apparently suitable sites being ignored. This would intimate that the exact biological requirements go beyond a simple need for fen or pool margins. |
| 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: | With the caveat that this maybe ineffective as the exact ecology is unknown. That said ongoing habitat management to maintain/extend high quality fen and pingo sites would seem to be a necessity especially as new sites were found in the 2022 Field Meeting. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Life history factor/s |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Assumed to be rare even within known sites, the exact habitat niche is unknown, larvae have been found from vegetated edges of pools and are potentially amphibious as opposed to fully aquatic. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Tailored surveys of potential habitat in and around known localities to determine the population and species distribution, thus identifying areas if O. angulata is present.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Recent records from the following sites: West Norfolk. Thompson Common (TL936965), East Norfolk, Sutton Fen RSPB, (TG373235), Scrimshaw Fen (TG340063), Hickling Broad (TG425219), Upton Broad Bog (TG384136), Wheatfen (TG32690583) and Berkshire, Cothill Fen SU461997
Comments: A tailored survey within the known flight period to encompass the areas where previous sightings have been made along with any adjacent/linked areas with similar habitats to see if populations are still present or if they have spread.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Creation and enhancement of viable habitat for the species through scrub clearance or through grazing/mowing to prevent reed and scrub encroachment, at sites not already managing in this way.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Recent records from the following sites: West Norfolk. Thompson Common (TL936965), East Norfolk, Sutton Fen RSPB, (TG373235), Scrimshaw Fen (TG340063), Hickling Broad (TG425219), Upton Broad Bog (TG384136), Wheatfen (TG32690583) and Berkshire, Cothill Fen SU461997
Comments: To prevent encroachment of reed and any other scrub that may infringe on existing sites, further limiting the area that the species can survive in. This should also consider the effects on water levels where applicable. [It should be noted that most sites are protected so these measures may already be in place]
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Assessment of occupied sites if found and those adjacent unoccupied sites, to explore habitat niche and any see if any specific requirements can be identified. [This should include measurements of Ca+ ion concentrations and pH measurements of both use and un-used sites.]
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Recent records from the following sites: West Norfolk. Thompson Common (TL936965), East Norfolk, Sutton Fen RSPB, (TG373235), Scrimshaw Fen (TG340063), Hickling Broad (TG425219), Upton Broad Bog (TG384136), Wheatfen (TG32690583) and Berkshire, Cothill Fen SU461997
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.