Green Hound's-tongue (Cynoglossum germanicum)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vascular plant > flowering plant > Herbaceous plant |
| Red List Status: | Critically Endangered (Not Relevant) [CR(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: | Cynoglossum germanicum |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | Jacq. |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | in Stroh et al., 2014 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | Assessed as NT in England (Stroh et al., 2014) and subsequently reassessed as NT for GB, as the total population lies within England. There is no evidence of an ongoing decline - indeed, it is now found in many more sites than pre-2000. As a dynamic species dependent on periodic disturbance, increased frequency and ferocity of storms as a result of climate change is likely to increase disturbance events. This in turn may lead to a further increase in distribution. Dispersed on the fur of animals, the increased in deer numbers is also likely to positively impact on the dispersal potential of this species. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | It is probable that natural dynamic processes will enable the stability, or expansion, of the population over time. Manual disturbance targeted for this species would be labour/time rich, and it would be difficult to target such management appropriately as regeneration is via the seed bank/seed dispersal. It would be possible to plant out seeds/ex situ grown plants, but this seems an unnecessary expense considering its current status and means of reproduction/dispersal. |
| 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
Not relevant as no Key Actions defined.
Key Actions
No Key Actions Defined
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.