Philodromus emarginatus
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: | Philodromus emarginatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Schrank, 1803) |
| 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): still some evidence of decline but threat status may be lower at next review with recent finds in S England. Apparent loss of sites in Yorks/Lincs leaves two widely separated populations in Scotland and S England (as with P. margaritatus). |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Much less abundant than expected from its apparent habitat specialism |
| 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: | Usually found on pine bark, frequently in heathland and so particularly vulnerable to tree clearance in this habitat |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of all 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: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Focus on former sites in Lincs./Yorks. as well as Surrey heaths and Dorset/Hants. Survey by beating.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements at contrasting and reliable sites
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Lavington Common, West Sussex; Chobham Common, Surrey; Roudsea Moss, Cumbria
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Ensure heathland management at recorded sites includes maintenance of areas of pines and pine regrowth.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Integrate prescription with landscape-scale heathland restoration projects and other advisory material on heathland management
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.