There are numerous British records of this species, but almost all pre-dated the recognition of Xeris pallicoxae as a new species in 2015, with the latter found to be the correct name for all of the British specimens in the Natural History Museum (Goulet et al. 2015). Therefore, other historical specimens do need critical re-examination to confirm whether spectrum has actually occurred; indeed, a Xeris was noted in Sheffield in 1907 as having been imported from China, suggesting that yet further species might also be involved. A 2020 record from Oxfordshire on iRecord looks superficially correct for spectrum on the basis of its fore coxae colour, but it is not yet clear how safe this identification would be if this were the sole record. A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting many potential records of the species.

Only described new to science in 2015, when an extensive review of the genus (Goulet et al. 2015) discovered that all British specimens in the Natural History Museum previously attributed to Xeris spectrum were in fact this new species. There are now at least six confirmed records, dated between 1959 and 2021, with some involving multiple individuals. The true status of this species cannot be fully assessed until more specimens previously assigned to Xeris spectrum have been redetermined. On current evidence, some records do relate to the species being at large in the British countryside but a record from Harwich is suggestive of an importation, and the species has also regularly been intercepted at ports elsewhere in the world, suggesting that this is a common means of transfer. A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting many potential records of the species.

Benson (1951) referred to the presence of Sirex cyaneus in Britain as a 'Holarctic species, generally thought to be American in origin, established in S Britain whither it is often imported in timber'. Schiff et al. (2012) split the Nearctic cyaneus from the European torvus. Liston et al. (2014) included only torvus and not cyaneus on the British checklist. However, it is not clear how many specimens have been redetermined following this taxonomic change; if the species is occurring through importation, it seems plausible that both species could be involved. The records collated for this review include both records 'in the wild' and in woodyards, but none make clear whether the wood was locally felled or imported, never mind from where such an import may have arisen. Moreover, torvus is very close in appearance to atricornis (q.v.) which it seems may be (or have been) present in northern Scotland. Hence the five (pre-1917) Scottish records of cyaneus/torvus should also be checked vs atricornis. A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty currently affecting all records of torvus/cyaneus. Reports of the species-pair have come from each of England, Scotland and Wales. Of interest, records are very sparse recently, with one in 2013 the only 21st century record, and the taxon would probably be assigned one of the IUCN threatened categories were the taxonomic issues resolved.

This species appears to be widespread. However, most records will have been determined using Benson (1951) which did not recognise the existence of two Heptamelus species in Britain and hence many previous records need critical re-examination, where specimens or other evidence exists. Vikberg & Liston (2009) confirm about 20 specimens, mostly from Scotland but some in England and Wales, apparently based mostly on examination of the collections at the Royal Scottish Museum (Edinburgh). A number of recent Norfolk records have also been clearly identifiable as ochroleucus s.s. (pers. obs.) A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting many potential records of the species.

Originally described by Thomson in 1870, this species was not recognised (at least not as British) by Benson (1951). It was re-described by Vikberg & Liston (2009). To date, the records that have come to light (from field observations and examination of some older specimens) are all from the western side of Britain between 1936 and 2001, including from Cornwall, Wolverhampton, Wallasey, Cumbria (reared from larvae from several sites in 1989), Argyll and the Isle of Barra. It seems highly likely that further examination of old specimens originally attributed to ochroleucus will reveal more dahlbomi. The fact that five records were generated from collected larvae in a ten-day period in Cumbria suggests that this species is very overlooked, but the species is assigned a status of Data Deficient on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting many potential records of the species.

Just six records, all from a limited area of southern England (the earlier Rannoch record is erroneous), and so only known from recently-established pine plantations and not the native Caledonian forest. It is unknown as to whether arrival was through natural dispersal or human-mediated translocation. Following a pre-1913 larval record, the other five are quite recent (1997-2007) and form a tight cluster at the corners of Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire. Whilst the species might have gone overlooked between 1913 and 1997, an alternative interpretation might be of two separate introduction events? Assessments against all criteria could lead to an Endangered assessment under criteria A and B, but the very limited number of records suggests that Data Deficient is more appropriate.

A non-native species, appearing in spruce plantations from 1906 onwards. The means of arrival of the species are unknown, but human translocation and/or natural arrival from continental Europe would both seem plausible. Records remained at fairly low level although widespread in southern England, until a major outbreak in Wales in the 1970s. This subsided and there has been no subsequent outbreak. There are few records from northern England and none to date from Scotland. Since 1977 there are only two dated records, from 2000 and 2011, both in Surrey. It seems highly plausible that the species remains present at low density in spruce plantations, but actual records to back this supposition up would be helpful. This suspicion of significant under-recording suggests that Data Deficient would currently be the appropriate status to use, in line with IUCN guidelines; it feels equally plausible that the true status could either be Least Concern or Critically Endangered.

This is one of two current Trichiosoma taxa originally named by Linnaeus, although later examination of his collection suggests that his three specimens all relate to different taxa (Viitasaari 1985). Later authors may have meant this taxon when using silvaticum, and laterale was also mixed up in it at times. Benson (1951) listed vitellinae [sic] as a Salix feeder but synonymised laterale within it; this was followed by Quinlan & Gauld (1981). Hence most records of vitellina from the 1950s onwards cannot be assumed to exclude the currently recognised laterale. Viitasaari (1985,1990) did split these two taxa again, but it is probably unsafe to assume that most British recorders made reference to these Finnish references. Note that Lacourt (2020) again combines vitellina and laterale. A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting most potential records of the species. Note that the taxon has been recognised for England, Scotland and Wales based on pre-1951 records, although in reality, the true status of all members of the genus remains uncertain.

This taxon was initially recognised by Leach (1817) and was referred to by a number of subsequent authors. However, Benson's 1951 key gives this as a synonym of latreillei (for females - although confusingly he uses sylvaticum in the male key for presumably the same species) and suggests this is maybe a northern counterpart to lucorum. Quinlan & Gauld (1981) include both scalesii and latreillei within lucorum. Given that both Benson and Quinlan & Gauld were in widespread use post-1981 this means that any records of scalesii would not have been keyed as such. Viitasaari (1990) recognised scalesii although was less clear about what latreillei represented. Lacourt (2020) does not include scalesii (but does include latreillei). In short, there are no recent records assigned to scalesii. It is possible that some would be found were a full reassessment of specimens undertaken (although the identification criteria are currently lacking to do this). A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting all potential records of the species (except for the type specimen, by definition).

If this is a true species then the only acceptable record to date would appear be the type specimen from 1835. Stephens (1835) said it was found in the vicinity of London, but was not common. Subsequent authors seemed unconvinced - the taxon was omitted by Cameron (1885), Morice (1904) and Benson (1951). Quinlan & Gauld (1981) synonymised pusillum (and many other taxa) within lucorum. Viitasaari (1989) examined the type specimen in the BMNH and said it should be synonymised with Russian nigripes and also noted it may just refer to dwarf examples of tibiale. Lacourt (2020) does, however, list the species. Although the taxon was included on the British checklist by Liston et al. (2014), there has been little likelihood of observers recording a specimen as this taxon. A status of Data Deficient has been assigned on the basis of taxonomic uncertainty affecting the potential for records of the species.