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).

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.

Whilst there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctuations in the population, the low value for 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.

Whilst there is no evidence of continuing decline, fragmentation or extreme fluctuations in the population, the low value for AOO, in conjunction with the seven 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.

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.

With no records since 1949, this species would have been considered Regionally Extinct, save for a confirmed record in 2023. Adjusting the end-year of the assessment for this species to take this into account, a status of Vulnerable is indicated under Criterion D2 on the basis of presence at a single known site, where it is plausible that a future threat could lead to the status changing to CR or RE in a short period of time. In addition, change over 10 years is not calculable for EOO so an assessment against Criterion A is not possible, whilst AOO has increased over the period. There is no information on population size for use in Criteria C or D1 nor any life history model to inform an assessment against Criterion E. Whilst the very small EOO and AOO might suggest CR under Criterion B and there is just one current location, there is no evidence of continung decline, fragmentation or population fluctuation.

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.