Diplocephalus protuberans
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Vulnerable (Not Relevant) [VU(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: | Diplocephalus protuberans |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (O.P.-Cambridge, 1875) |
| 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: | VU, criteria: B2ab(ii): remains in apparent severe decline in England (recorded in only 1/21 English hectads since 2000) though some new records in NW Wales (majority of recorded sites are in England) |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Very rare compared with apparently preferred habitat |
| 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: | Found in streams with coarse stoney beds in high humidity situations e.g. gorges and the shade of deciduous woodland. Often in flood litter 'strand lines'. Given extreme rarity and decline, recovery potential inevitably low - possible that climate change induced range shift is occurring, |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of former, nearby and other suitable 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: Include Ashdown Forest ghylls in survey: Hastings Country Park record from similar Hastings Beds sandstone ghyll.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to better characterise micro-habitat requirements including importance of flood litter, and 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:
Comments: Use any reliable, and ideally, contrasting sites (including in Wales).
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: If Action 2 confirms stream-side flood litter as key habitat, produce a leaflet to raise awareness (from Action 2) with land owners via farm conservation advisors
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments: Relevant to all recorded sites and similar habitat nationally. Implemented through bespoke farm conservation advice.
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.