A gap in the data is making this species appear vulnerable, when there is no indication that this is the case. Gaps in the taxonomic record do not represent real gaps and likely reflect a lack of collection effort, especially in the North. In addition, even though there are gaps in our knowledge of this species, it is likely more widespread in the territory, as it present in low arctic and boreal zones and in neighboring regions (Griffiths 1998). Therefore this species is unlikely to be vulnerable. Despite limited records (6), this species could be more prevalent than records would suggest (see range extent and occurrences). However there are gaps in information (Griffiths 1998). A conservative assessment would put this species at secure to apparently secure in the Northwest Territories, since although there is no indication that this species is under any threat, it is possible.