Gnaphosa lugubris
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: | Gnaphosa lugubris |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (C.L. Koch, 1839) |
| 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): no conspicuous change since 2017 review. Confined to England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Much 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: | Unknown |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Lives in burrows in dry stony areas on open heathland and coastal short limestone grassland and shingle. Drivers of apparent losses on Dorset heaths and absence from New Forest not understood. Note similarities with Zelotes longipes. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of all recorded and nearby sites, and other apparently suitable habitat, 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: Orford Ness, Suffolk; Dungy Head to Durlston Head cliffs and inland dry heaths, Dorset
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: Orford Ness, Suffolk; Dancing Ledge, Purbeck, Dorset
Comments: Focus on reliable and contrasting sites. If re-found at any of its former Dorset heathland sites (Action 1), include this too.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure site managers are aware of species past/recent presence and vulnerability on their sites. Update them with Action 1 and 2 results to provide any resulting guidance on locations/management and inform commissioning of invertebrate survey work (methods likely to detect/damage species, need for retention and examination of spider by-catch when not a survey target)
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 10 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Assemble mailing list and update site managers at species-appropriate intervals; most easily delivered by BAS/SRS.
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.