Geyer's Whorl Snail (Vertigo geyeri)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > mollusc > Mollusc (non-marine) |
| 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: | Vertigo (Vertigo) geyeri |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Lindholm, 1925 |
| 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: | Found throughout GB and probably considered reasonably stable in England. Species is confined to a very specific habitat type chiefly unshaded base-rich flushes in upland habitats. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | It's conservation depends chiefly upon managing habitats in a certain condition. Currently all sites are understood to be in good condition but an updated assessment is required to feed into a possible Red List update. |
| 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: | Structured - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Detailed monitoring has occurred as an Article 17 species |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake monitoring of the species using standardised techniques (involving cutting flush vegetation, drying, sieving and microscopically examining) to update currents status and feed into Red List updates.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: Scarning Fen Norfolk (only lowland site in England), western Pennines and N. York Moors (all site known to NE)
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: The management of Scarning Fen was very poor for this species and management advice should be given to directly address this, in addition to re-survey for geyeri. it is important as the only remaining English lowland site.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
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.