Centromerus albidus
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered/Possibly Extinct (Not Relevant) [CR(PE)(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: | Centromerus albidus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Simon, 1929 |
| 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: | CR (PE), criteria: B2ab(iv): will be CR but not (PE) at next review with 1 recent site (lost from 3 historic sites). All records confined to C-S England |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extreme rarity relative to apparent habitat availability |
| 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: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Usually found in largely Beech litter but likely to be troglophilic, living in humid chalk crevices. Extreme rarity of species cf apparent habitat suggests recovery potential is low but reasons not yet understood. |
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: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Amberley Chalk Pits, W. Sussex; Box Valley and White Downs, Surrey; Stockbridge, Hants.
Comments: Must target adult activity period, which appears to be mainly autumn/winter (will be informed by Action 2)
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise habitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Amberley Chalk Pits
Comments: Only recorded site since 1969. Combine with actions for Tegenaria picta at same site.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advise site managers on maintenance of scrub management (advice refined with information on current status and autecological research (Actions 1 and 2))
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Amberley Chalk Pits
Comments: Combine action with that for Tegenaria/Eratigena picta.
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.