Assessments against all criteria give no reason to consider it threatened. The estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A; EOO far exceeds the 20,000km2 VU threshold for Criterion B and the number of locations exceeds five, exceeding the Criterion D2 threshold. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The AOO is below the Criterion B threshold but the number of recent locations exceeds 10 and there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. None of the estimates approach the thresholds sufficiently to suggest NT might be an appropriate categorisation.

Assessments against all criteria give no reason to consider it threatened. The estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A; EOO far exceeds the 20,000km2 VU threshold for Criterion B and the number of locations exceeds five, exceeding the Criterion D2 threshold. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The AOO is below the Criterion B threshold but the number of recent locations exceeds 10 and there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. None of the estimates approach the thresholds sufficiently to suggest NT might be an appropriate categorisation.

There have been no records since 1967, despite a large increase in the amount of sawfly recording, particularly in the south-east of England from where the species was formerly noted. As a result, this species is categorised as Regionally Extinct.

Whilst there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctuations in the population, low values for EOO and AOO, in conjunction with the eight recent locations, would otherwise suggest a status of VU under Criterion B, and hence a status of NT is considered appropriate. Otherwise, the estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A; there is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1; the number of locations exceeds five, exceeding the Criterion D2 threshold; and there are no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E.

Assessments against all criteria give no reason to consider it threatened. The estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A; EOO far exceeds the 20,000km2 VU threshold for Criterion B and the number of locations exceeds five, exceeding the Criterion D2 threshold. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The AOO is below the Criterion B threshold but the number of recent locations exceeds 10 and there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. None of the estimates approach the thresholds sufficiently to suggest NT might be an appropriate categorisation.

Non-native and not established in the wild.

Assessments against all criteria give no reason to consider it threatened. The estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A; EOO far exceeds the 20,000km2 VU threshold for Criterion B and the number of locations exceeds five, exceeding the Criterion D2 threshold. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The AOO is below the Criterion B threshold but the number of recent locations exceeds 10 and there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. None of the estimates approach the thresholds sufficiently to suggest NT might be an appropriate categorisation.

Assessments against all criteria give no reason to consider it threatened. The estimated rate of decline in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification as VU against Criterion A; EOO far exceeds the 20,000km2 VU threshold for Criterion B and the number of locations exceeds five, exceeding the Criterion D2 threshold. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The AOO is below the Criterion B threshold but the number of recent locations exceeds 10 and there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. None of the estimates approach the thresholds sufficiently to suggest NT might be an appropriate categorisation.

The estimated rate of change in range over the last 10 years does not exceed the 30% decline required for qualification against Criterion A. Both EOO and AOO are qualifyingly small and with two locations the species might qualify as EN under Criterion B, but there is no evidence of population fragmentation, fluctuation or continuing decline. There is no information on population size to assess against Criteria C and D1 and no life history models to inform assessments against Criterion E. The small number of locations might qualify the species as VU under D2, but there is no plausible threat which could affect the population sufficiently to drive it to CR in a short period of time. Hence, no threatened status can be justified, but Near Threatened is assigned in recognition of the species nearly qualifying for EN under B1a and B2a, and nearly qualifying for VU under D2.