Glutinous Snail (Myxas glutinosa)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > mollusc > Mollusc (non-marine) |
| Red List Status: | Regionally Extinct (GB scale) (Not Relevant) [RE(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: | Myxas glutinosa |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (O. F. Müller, 1774) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Seddon et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The species is regionally extinct in England and currently only known from 1 site in GB (Llyn Tegid in North Wales). Captive population work is underway since this was compiled, using Llyn Tegid stock |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Reintroduction is a possible longer-term option for consideration. The Freshwater Habitats Trust have considered this using captive bred stock originating from animals captured (under licence) from Llyn Tegid in N. Wales. Immediate reintroduction is not advocated here because the factors probably causing the loss of the species from England have not been addressed. Thus water quality in one of Myxas's former English strongholds, Lake Windermere, is currently an issue with reports of sewage pollution leading to algal blooms. There are similar arguments for not reintroducing Myxas to other former English locations. |
| 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: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Water pollution is considered to be the main contributary factor causing the loss of the last few English populations. A recent development is the establishment of captive breeding animals at Askham Bryan Wildlife Park in York (and initiative supported by the Freshwater Habitats Trust and BIAZA). The captive stock (bred in Wales from Llyn Tegid stock taken under licence from NRW) are currently in tanks and will be introduced to an artificial pond. at this stage it is NOT intending to use these as a source for reintroduction to former English sites. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Feasibility study into suitable sites for release, and whether any exist in England.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 1 year
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: likely to require water quality analysis and include ZSL DRAHS team
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Work to complete knowledge on autecology. This would include preference testing at the Askham Bryan. Guided by results of Action 1.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: If outcomes of feasibility are favourable, trial release at 2 sites with monitoring of numbers over the ensuing three years and advice given to site managers.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: (Re-)introduction
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: duration: 3 years after the first winter of release
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.