Strict assessment of the data would suggest a status of EN under Criterion B2ab but numbers of records are very small. Given that the majority of the foodplant occurs in the north and west, as well as the species being missing from the standard identification reference of Benson (1958), a status of DD seems warranted, as the records are insufficient to say whether the species is threatened or not.

Strict assessment 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. 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 EOO and AOO and numbers of recent locations are below the Criterion B thresholds, but there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctations in the population. The number of locations is fewer than five but there is no plausible threat that could justify VU under Criterion D2. Given that the data are close to thresholds for Criteria B and D2, NT could be considered. However, this species would have been classed as RE until a single study found it to be relatively common in two spruce forests. This implies that the dataset is inadequate to describe the status and DD is more appropriate until such time as further information from spruce forests is available.

No records since 1963 so potentially RE. However, both records were from Sutherland, which is not at all well-recorded. Without at least some targeted fieldwork, both LC and CR seem equally feasible, and so DD is indicated.

Strict assessment of the data would suggest a status of CR but numbers of records are very small. Species not covered in the main identification reference (Benson 1958) and sufficiently similar to other species that records are likely to have gone overlooked. A status of DD is warranted, as the records are insufficient to say whether the species is threatened (CR) or not (LC).

No evidence of nesting since 2001. No specific data is available on the species in the Principality.

Reproduction of the species has been verified in the past, but no data is available on the current situation.

The last data is from 25 years ago and it has not been possible to verify if the species is still breeding since then. Possibly RE but data is lacking to confirm this

There is limited information regarding Chesneya parviflora and its distribution within the UAE. Although this species has been recorded from the southern edge of the Ru'us al-Jibal and the Dibba zone, detailed distribution data is lacking. Furthermore, the threats to this species are currently unknown and there is more to learn about its habitat and ecology. Therefore, this species is currently assessed as Data Deficient.

Although this species has been recorded from two specific localities within the UAE, detailed data on its distribution in the country is required. For now, it is assessed as Data Deficient.

This species is known from a small number of records from prior to 2000. Little is known of the species, and it is considered Data Deficient.