Xysticus luctator
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > spider (Araneae) > Spider |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(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: | Xysticus luctator |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | L. Koch, 1870 |
| 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: | EN, criteria: B2ab(ii,iv): restricted to S England and seen at only 1 of its former 4 sites since 2000. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Extremely rare relative to apparent habitat availability |
| 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: | Found in litter under mature heather and beech woodland. Habitat shortage does not appear to explain extreme rarity; with causes not understood, recovery likelihood is inevitably low. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Targeted survey of all recorded, nearby and apparently suitable 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: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Bloxworth Heath, Dorset; Denny Bog area, New Forest; Whiteleaf Hill, Bucks; Windsor Forest, Berks.
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Autecological research to establish microhabitat requirements and inform management
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Denny Bog/Heath, Lyndhurst
Comments: Only possible if it can be reliably detected at this, most recently recorded (2023) site and is not re-found (Action 1) at other former sites
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Produce a spotting card for staff/biologists/visitors to target areas to raise awareness and generate new sightings of this very rarely recorded species.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: Unknown
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites:
Comments: Viable action for this conspicuous species and combines opportunity to raise awareness with the urgent need to generate sighting opportunities for status assessment. BAS to produce, in collaboration with New Forest National Park Authority and other relevant site managers. Data to be fed to SRS via QR code for its iRecord form. In New Forest, action can be combined with that for Xysticus/Bassaniodes robustus.
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.