Glyphesis servulus
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: | Glyphesis servulus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Simon, 1881) |
| 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: No overall decline but apparently lost from its 2 most S sites. Confirmed to the S half of Britain (slightly more frequent in Wales than England). Often restricted to very small habitat patches and so less common than suggested by hectad map. |
| 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: | A southern species, restricted to lowland, both acidic and basic wet peat sites with threatened hydrologies, usually in base of tussocky vegetation including Cladium mariscus and Molinia caerulea. Recovery limited by rarity of habitat and hydrological challenges from climate change etc. |
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: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites: Wicken Fen, Cambs.; Chelwood area, Ashdown Forest, E. Sussex; Bracketts Coppice, New Forest; Shapwick Heath, Somerset; Sutton Park, Birmingham.
Comments:
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: Chippenham Fen, Cambs; Shapwick Heath, Somerset
Comments: Focus on reliable and geographically 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: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: 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.