Lichen Running-spider (Philodromus margaritatus)
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: | Philodromus margaritatus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Clerck, 1757) |
| 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: Some apparent losses from SE England although no longer any evidence of overall decline. Exists as two extremely disjunct population in the Caledonian pine Forests and in S England. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Less frequent than expected from its dependency on lichen-covered wood |
| 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: | Dependent on lichen-covered wood, both broad-leaved and coniferous. Highly cryptic. Disjunct distribution possibly due to historical lichen loss but there are no old records within this zone. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted re-survey of all former 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: Best surveyed by beating, including the tips of lichen-covered twigs. Sometimes found in bird nest boxes; consider enlisting bird ringers to search nestboxes via BTO Life-cycle newsletter article.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements at reliable sites and establish whether there are important genetic differences between the N Scottish and S English populations
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 area, E Sussex; Lanydrock Estate, Cornwall
Comments: Focus on reliable and contrasting sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Advise land managers at and around known sites on the importance of maintaining continuity of lichen-covered tree growth. Refine advice in the light of Action 2.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 50 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Ensure site managers for known sites are aware of species' requirements and update via Action 2. Compile sites/contacts list.
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.