Acartauchenius scurrilis
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| 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: | Acartauchenius scurrilis |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (O.P.-Cambridge, 1872) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Harvey et al., 2017 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | NT, criteria: B2a: status may improve at next review, with some recent new records. Confined to S England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very restricted range even in relation to specialist habitat and ant host |
| 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): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Found under stones, exclusively in the nests of the ant Tetramorium caespitum (L.). Restricted to dry, sandy heaths and coastal grassland in the south and west. Autumn adult activity peak and difficulty of finding may result in under-recorded. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of recorded and nearby sites, using standardised methodology to assess current status (and establish baseline for national monitoring programme)
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Status survey/review
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements including relationship with ant host, and to inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: e.g. Thursley Common, Surrey; Queener Point, Cornwall
Comments: Focus on reliable and contrasting sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Where necessary, frequently on cliff tops, site management to include scrub control with aftermath grazing/mowing, to maintain short, open swards.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Action likely to be integral to wider management objectives for site
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.