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.

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.

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.