Talk:List of United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan species

Euphrasia

I have deleted the Euphrasia entry as there are probably some 20 spp in the British Isles of which c. 8 may well be endemic, many in western Scotland. Many are also local or even rare. However, rarity by itself does not make them endangered - the species may have always been rare because it occupies a specialised ecological niche. If there is a reliable citation to support the entry then please restore but at a species level and with a valid reference. Velela 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were listed on the Biodiversity Steering Group's report of December 1995. It is rather an odd entry, but I've re-added it for the moment, as otherwise we would have all but one of their entries. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Beefing it up"

The external link provided to the latest BAP website should enable the keen ones among us to fully update the list :-) —GRM (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move to "List of Endangered Species of Great Britain"

This article is incorrectly using the term "British Isles". The references used are from sources of the United Kingdom, and cite examples for Great Britain. --Bardcom (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference covering NI and ROI [1]. Maybe you could add some of the details from this and other sources. That would be better than a renaming. CarterBar (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference still only refers to endangered species of the UK. Am I missing something? --Bardcom (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to cover NI and ROI although it's based on UK critieria - I think that's what it is anyway. CarterBar (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digging a little more - there is a "Red Data" book that lists endangered species for Ireland here, but I don't have a copy and it doesn't appear to be available online. (There's two books, one for plants - published in 1988 - and one for wildlife. The plant one is available online, and wildlife one doesn't appear to be). What *is* obvious though, is that this article doesn't reference it, so it lends weight to the proposed move. --Bardcom (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....and what of the flowering plants, ferns, bryophytes etc. ? Velela (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Thanks. I've changed the proposal. I *meant* to say species... --Bardcom (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Trout

I have removed Brown trout from the list as it remain an ubiquitous species in freshwater habitats and is probably increasing in distribution (if not numbers) as fresh water quality improves. As is the case with very many species in Britain it is threatened by habitat destruction, alien invasions etc. but if we were to include all such species this list would be enormous and it wouldn't reflect the title word endangered. Velela (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References?

I added a heading for references. What references were used to compile this? Are there lists online? In particular can someone tell me where was the mollusc data taken from? I have incorporated the mollusc data into the List of non-marine molluscs of Great Britain, but I do need a ref or refs to back it up. The one external link given does not include mollusk species. Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of content

After going through all the mammals and birds, only the otter is red listed (the aquatic warbler simply passes through and is not listed in UK bird books). Unless the specimens of the UK are considered subspecies, this entire article is largely misleading. There should be some indication made within the text of whether the specie is endangered in terms of global breeding population or simply UK population. Clearly the Red Squirrel should be on this page, but it should be made clear that outside of the UK the red squirrel is not threatened and is not IUCN listed. I propose that instead of having the latin binomial alongside each entry, there should be the demarcation "UK population threat" or "Global population threat" plus the IUCN status i.e. LC. In the vast majority of cases it would be "UK population threat, Least Concern". This would make most sense with a picture/key of the IUCN scale similar to that found on many of the individual specie pages. 80.176.89.230 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. While Peter makes a reasonable point, it probably makes sense to have consistency with United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan. Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of endangered species of the British Isles → List of United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan species – Current name is highly misleading. Most of the species contained in the list are not listed as threatened or endangered by the IUCN. The list appears to be based on listing by the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan which purports to list species that “as needing conservation and greater protection”. Some of those species may indeed be listed as endangered or threatened by the IUCN, but clearly it’s not all of those listed in the article. It was the presence of Brown trout in the lead of article that caught my attention. Here’s a species that is in no way endangered and listed as “of least concern” by the IUCN, yet it appears on a list of endangered species in the British Isles. A non-exhaustive sampling reveals other listed species that are in no way endangered—Grey partridge, House sparrow, Vipera berus, and Northern crested newt. If the name is not changed, the list should be paired down to those species that are truly listed as endangered. Mike Cline (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The change of title is clearly correct; I would personally prefer deletion – the "United Kingdom" is not a useful unit for geographical recording of species, and I can't see that the topic is of anything but parochial interest. However, if deletion isn't going to happen, the suggested move is the next best. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Point of Information

Just a note for anyone using this list for study purposes: you need to be aware that the UK BAP lists are no longer officially recognised, despite the fact that we still tend to (wrongly) call them UKBAP Priority Species and UKBAP Priority Habitats in day-to-day speak. (The reason for this is that the UK BAP was replaced by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, published in 2012 which did not relist key species and habitats) However, those original lists of BAP species were embodied, first into the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and latterly into separate country legislation. I am slowly working on these.

List of species and habitats of principal importance in England complete and up-to-date
List of habitats of principal importance in Wales species not yet included as Natural Resources Wales tell me a review of Section 7 species are going out to consultation in autumn 2017, so probably won't be be updated until 2018. Until then, the Section 42 NERC Act list applies to Wales
Scotland - to do
Northern Ireland - to do

Forgive me for not updating the main article, as I currently don't have sufficient free time to accurately reword and correctly cite all sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]