Propolydesmus testaceus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > millipede > Millipede |
| 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: | Propolydesmus testaceus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (C.L. Koch, 1847) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Lee, 2015 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | NT in England, recent records are from calcareous grassland in Kent and Oxon and a woodland in Suffolk; latter site is threatened by national infrastructure development. A review of its current status is required to find out if populations are stable. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Possibly under recorded, older records from Essex, Cornwall and Surrey indicate suitable habitat may occur more widely |
| 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: | This is a hesitant response based on an apparent ability to colonise reclaimed industrial land in Wales. Habitat mosaics on calcareous substrates are likely to be suitable for colonisation |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Easily overlooked as a species of Polydesmus by workers unfamiliar with the species |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey by hand searching and pitfall trapping to update status assessment. Initially target all previously recorded sites but where species is refound extend survey to other suitable habitat in adjacent hectads.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites: Start with previously recorded sites in Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Cornwall and Oxon.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements. Sufficient data is expected from action one to confirm and refine provisional view of habitat requirements.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Start with previously recorded sites in Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Cornwall and Oxon.
Comments: Data will be collected alongside survey in action one but repeat visits to at least some sites may be required
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Using the results of actions one and two inform BMIG members and other recorders about habitat requirements and survey techniques to improve data submission to Recording Scheme and hence ability to determine population trends
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: Sites will be identified through first two actions
Comments: Dependent on success of first two actions
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.