Abstract
Dermaptera (earwigs) from the Anisolabididae family may be important for pest control but their taxonomy and status in Australia is poorly studied. Here we used taxonomic information to assess the diversity of southern Australian Anisolabididae and then applied cox1 barcodes as well as additional gene fragments (mitochondrial and nuclear) to corroborate classification and assess the monophyly of the putative genera. Anisolabididae morphospecies fell into two genera, Anisolabis Fieber and Gonolabis Burr, based on paramere morphology. Combinations of paramere and forceps morphology distinguished seven morphospecies, which were further supported by morphometric analyses. The morphospecies were corroborated by barcode data; all showed within-species genetic distance < 4% and between-species genetic distance > 10%. Molecular phylogenies did not support monophyly of putative genera nor clades based on paramere shape, instead pointing to regional clades distinguishable by forceps morphology. This apparent endemism needs to be further tested by sampling of earwig diversity outside of agricultural production regions but points to a unique regional insect fauna potentially important in pest control.
Highlights
Dermaptera represent a cosmopolitan [1], but understudied, insect order, totalling roughly 1930 species worldwide [2]
Surveys were conducted using cardboard roll traps and pitfall traps filled with 50 mL 100% propylene glycol, both left at sites for a period of seven days each time
This study presents, to our knowledge, the most detailed study of Australian Anisolabididae to date
Summary
Dermaptera (earwigs) represent a cosmopolitan [1], but understudied, insect order, totalling roughly 1930 species worldwide [2]. Cassis [9] has most recently reviewed the Australian Dermaptera. He accounts for 85 species, 36 genera, and 18 subfamilies representing 7 of the 9 families recognised by Haas [10], while Haas’ database lists 88 species [11]. The two epizoic taxa, Hemimerina and Arixeniina, were previously considered suborders [10,14,15] because of their distinctive superficial morphology and lifestyle, or were not considered at all [3,5] These have been reconsidered as highly derived sister taxa to other extant families [16,17,18], in line with Popham’s [19] morphological analysis.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
