Cotton's Amazon Spider (Glyphesis cottonae)
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: | Glyphesis cottonae |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (La Touche, 1945) |
| 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,iv): threat status may be reduced at next review because of new discoveries/rediscoveries. Confined to England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Less frequent than apparently suitable 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: | Restricted to vigorous Sphagnum lawns in lowland raised bogs. Populations likely to be well documented in the S but likelihood of undiscovered ones in the N. Recovery potential likely to be low because of limited area of suitable habitat that is also very vulnerable to hydrological challenges. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of recent, nearby and similar 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: Dorset/Hants. heaths, Surrey heaths, Cheshire/Shropshire Mosses.
Comments: Significant H&S issues with survey for this species - best practise for very wet sites to be strictly observed
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: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Delamere Forest area, Cheshire; Studland Heath Dorset, Scaleby Moss, Cumbria
Comments: Focus on reliable and contrasting sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Provide targeted advice to project/land managers of peatland management/restoration/re-creation restoration projects (including palludiculture) in relevant areas, on the species location/s and habitat/management requirements (informed by actions 1 and 2) to avoid damage to current resource and maximise new colonisation opportunities.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Likely to colonise newly-created Sphagnum lawns in vicinity of existing populations. A liaison action for BAS, NE and site managers.
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.