Search

Forficula auricularia “Common earwig” Figures 47 (lateral), 48 (dorsal), 49 (ventral) Plates 26 (lateral), 27 (dorsal), 28 (ventral) DESCRIPTION: HEAD: H-DCT and H-VCT thick, of similar diameter; H-DCTs curve inward slightly such that left and right tracheae nearly touch before turning laterally outward on entry to head capsule; H-VCTs both proceed straight into head. H-DCT with several branches just anterior of cervix: H-DCC, H-DCT-Dvi, H-Oc, and H-Ant. H-DCC present. H-DCT-Dvi running laterally and dorsad. H-Oc arcing laterally, with several small tracheae extending into eye, then continuing anteriorly and ventrad via H-Oc-Md to link with ventral H-Md. H-Ant extends anteriorly through head into antenna; left side of Forficula as H-Ant-Ft with H-Ft branching off H-Ant near base of antenna; H-Ft branches off H-VCTsourced H-Md on right side. H-Ant with multiple tracheae in Anisolabis; likely present in Forficula but not visible in this scan. H-VCT likewise with several branches just anterior of cervix: H-VCTVi, H-VC, and H-Mx-Md. H-VCT-Vi running laterally and ventrad, like dorsal trachea. H-VC branches directly from H-VCT. Both H-VC with H-VC-Dvi run directly anteriad, extending as far as frontal area. H-Ft-Lbr absent. H-Mx-Md running anteriad and slightly laterally, with several branches: H-Lbm runs ventrad, with short H-LbmPlp; H-Mx running ventrad, with short H-MxPlp. Remaining H-Md branch runs anteriad, with H-Oc-Md connection from H-DCT; H-Md-Ant branching dorsally on right side to join H-Ant from H-DCT; H-Ft branching from H-Md on right side. THORAX: Distance between T 2- S and T 3- S much shorter in F. auricularia (See fig. 43). ABDOMEN: Abdominal tracheae of F. auricularia consistent with description of overall dermapteran tracheae above except for direction of visceral tracheae. A 6..7-VLT-Vi similar to their anterior counterparts, except A 6..7-VLT-Vi extend posteriorly rather than anteriorly, and do not extend beyond segment boundaries; A 5- A 6 appears to be dividing line for visceral tracheae from median longitudinal trunk, where A 2..5- VLT-Vi tracheae extend anteriorly and A 6..7- VLT-Vi extend posteriorly. A 2..7-VLT-Vi not bilaterally symmetric; right side tracheae larger in cross-sectional area than left. Right side tracheae, while extending into body, also do not supply exact same areas/organs as those from left side. A 3-DLT-Mvi and A 4-DLT-Mvi on left side extend directly toward the posterior, with A 3-DLT-Mvi ending near A 7-DB. A 3-DLT-Mvi on right side much reduced from left side counterpart, extending posteriorly as far as A 4. A 4-DLT-Mvi highly modified; after extending toward the middle of the body, continues well into A 8 and A 9, where it turns toward body wall in large arc that results in trachea pointing anteriorly. A 4-DLT-Mvi with similar loop on right as on left, but much shorter, with apex of loop reaching as far as A 5-DB. Extensive branching/tracheation in A 7 and A 8 for cercal (forceps) muscles., Published as part of Herhold, Hollister W, Davis, Steven R, Degrey, Samuel P & Grimaldi, David A, 2023, COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF THE INSECT TRACHEAL SYSTEM PART 1: INTRODUCTION, APTERYGOTES, PALEOPTERA, POLYNEOPTERA, pp. 1-184 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 459 (1) on pages 1-184, DOI: 10.5531/sd.sp.55, http://zenodo.org/record/7730159

Liparura chongqingensis sp. nov. (Figs 1–7) Diagnosis. Tegmina laterally with a distinct ridge, posterior margin obliquely truncate; legs generally relatively short compared with congeners; ultimate tergite immaculate, smooth, without protrusions; pygidium small, rounded; male forceps basally approached to each other, and bearing two inner teeth; basalmost tooth directed dorsad; distal 2/3 distinctly arched, terminally acutely tapering and bearing a subdistal tooth. Description. Male. Body length 14–15 mm from anterior margin of labrum to posterior margin of ultimate tergite; forceps length 9 mm. Coloration generally reddish brown, but abdomen darker, antennae and forceps slightly paler, legs yellowish. Head large, frons bulged, surface rough and densely wrinkled, transverse median sutures visible but not conspicuous, posterolateral angles rounded, posterior margin concaved. Eyes dark, small but prominent, shorter than length of head posteriad eyes. Antenna 12-segmented, scape (1st antennomere) long, longer than distance between antennal bases; pedicel (2nd antennomere) short; 1st flagellomere (3rd antennomere) twice as long as pedicel; 2nd flagellomere (4th antennomere) slightly shorter than 1st flagellomere; remaining flagellomeres gradually prolonged. Pronotum trifle wider than long, anterior angle not prominent, posterior margin slightly convex, median longitudinal furrow present, with a small pit on each side. Tegmina longer than pronotum; lateral margin with a distinct ridge (Fig. 1: lr), slightly rounded at shoulders; partial region of elytra densely rugose, but without larger points; posterior margin obliquely truncate. Hindwings absent. Mesosternum (Fig. 1: me) quadrate, nearly as wide as long. Legs relatively shorter than many congeners; posteriorly stretched hind leg reach to base of forceps. Abdominal tergites with weak punctures; lateral glands (Fig. 1: lg) on tergites 3-4 well marked, with that on tergite 4 much larger. Ultimate tergite (Figs 1: ut, 2) narrowed posteriad, posteromedially with a small pit. Penultimate sternite normal, with arched posterior margin. Lateral plates large, well protruded beneath the penultimate sternite. Pygidium (Fig. 1: py) small, rounded. Forceps (Figs 2, 6H) basally approached to each other, and each bearing two inner teeth; basalmost tooth directed dorsad; distal 2/3 distinctly arched as a semicircular curve, terminally acutely tapering and bearing a subdistal tooth. Genitalia (Fig. 3): Paramere (Fig. 3: pa) short, penis lobe (Fig. 3: pl) wide, which is narrowed distad, shorter than paramere. Virga (Fig. 3: vi) within genital lobe comparatively elongate, vesicle of virga (Fig. 3: vv) sclerotized and curved. Female. Body length 13 mm; forceps length 5 mm. Similar to male, but darker; penultimate sternite normal, rounded posteriorly; pygidium smaller; forceps straight and simple. Type material. Holotype male: CHINA, Chongqing City, Yintiaoling National Nature Reserve, 31°24′1.3353″N, 109°51′51.8995″E, 1637 m, 24.IX.2022, Xulong Chen (CAU). Paratypes: 1 male and 1 female, Yintiaoling National Nature Reserve, 31°31′29.51″N, 109°49′30.86″E, 1261 m, 10.IV.2022, Qianle Lu (CAU); 1 female, Yintiaoling National Nature Reserve, 31°24′49.56″N, 109°55′41.48″E, 2000 m, 19.VIII.2022, Quanyu Ji (CAU). Etymology. The new species is named after Chongqing where its type locality is located. Distribution. China (Chongqing). Remarks. The new species is assigned to Liparura based on the scape longer than distance between antennal bases, the tegmina with a sharp ridge along the costal margin and obliquely truncate on posterior margins, the absence of hindwings, the penis lobe and paramere short, and the virga elongate with sclerotized curvature basally. The new species can be readily distinguished from most other Liparura species except L. cornuta by the male forceps basally close to each other and distally incurved. The new species differs from L. cornuta by the ultimate tergite smooth without lateral protrusions, and the different shape of male forceps.

A new earwig species of the genus Liparura Burr, 1907 of the family Forficulidae, namely L. chongqingensis sp. nov., is described from Chongqing, southwestern China. The new species is characterized by the male forceps basally approached to each other, and each with a small tooth protruding dorsad. A key to the species of Liparura is provided.

Key to species of Liparura based on male characters 1. Male forceps simple, without any tooth or dorsal edge (Steinmann 1993: fig. 275; Fig. 6A)........ L. simplex Brindle, 1975 - Male forceps with inner tooth or teeth or dorsal edge basally.................................................. 2 2. Male forceps with dorsal edge basally..................................................................... 3 - Male forceps without dorsal edge basally.................................................................. 4 3. Male forceps straight and without internal teeth (Steinmann 1993: fig. 276; Fig. 6B).............. L. punctata Burr, 1910 - Male forceps slightly curved with 1-2 small teeth at base (Matzke, 2012: Table VII, fig. 6; Fig. 6C)................................................................................................... L. charlottea Matzke, 2012 4. Male ultimate tergite with smaller, but well-marked lateral spine (Steinmann 1983: fig. 9; Fig. 6D)................................................................................................ L. cornuta (Bey-Bienko, 1959) - Male ultimate tergite without lateral spine.................................................................. 5 5. Male ultimate tergite with four black longitudinal stripes...................................................... 6 - Male ultimate tergite without longitudinal stripes............................................................ 7 6. Abdomen deeply punctuate; inner margin of forceps crenate and with a large tooth at middle (Srivastava 1977: fig. 4e; Fig. 6E)........................................................................... L. serrata Srivastava, 1977 - Abdomen shallowly punctate; inner margin of forceps smooth, except for a small tooth at middle (Srivastava 1977: fig. 4a; Fig. 6F)....................................................................... L. kamengensis Srivastava, 1977 7. Base of male forceps each with two teeth (Figs 2, 6H).................................... L. chongqingensis sp. nov. - Male forceps armed with one or two teeth but not at base...................................................... 8 8. Pronotum almost quadrate; abdominal tergites shallowly punctate; forceps armed with a strong or weak tooth medially (Kapoor et al. 1971: fig. 89; Fig. 6I)............................. … L. debrepaniensis (Kapoor, Bharadwaj & Banerjee, 1971) - Pronotum longer than broad; abdominal tergites deeply punctate; forceps armed with one or two teeth (Fig. 6G)........................................................................................ L. dentata Srivastava, 1977, Published as part of Ye, Xiaohan, Kamimura, Yoshitaka, Li, Wenliang & Liu, Xingyue, 2023, A new earwig species of the genus Liparura Burr, 1907 (Dermaptera: Forficulidae from China, pp. 178-186 in Zootaxa 5257 (1) on page 179, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5257.1.14, http://zenodo.org/record/7765755, {"references":["Steinmann, H. (1993) Dermaptera: Eudermaptera II - Das Tierreich Bd. 108. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 711 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.1515 / 9783110872705","Burr, M. (1910) The Fauna of British India: Dermaptera (Earwigs). Taylor & Francis, London, 217 pp.","Matzke, D. (2012) A contribution to the fauna of earwings of Nepal with description of a new species (Insecta: Dermaptera). In: Hartmann, M. & Jorg Weipert, J. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Natural Heritage of the Himalaya. Naturkundemuseum Erfurt, Erfurt, pp. 149 - 177.","Steinmann, H. (1983) On Indian and Nepalese Dermaptera from the Museum d'Histoire naturelle at Geneve. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 90, 543 - 558. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 81994","Srivastava, G. (1977) Indian species of Euborellia and Liparura (Dermaptera) with descriptions of six new species. Oriental Insects, 11, 181 - 194. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00305316.1977.10434533","Kapoor, V., Bharadwaj, R. & Banerjee, S. (1971) Some new species of Dermaptera from India. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of India, 12, 28 - 40."]}

Herhold, Hollister W, Davis, Steven R, Degrey, Samuel P, Grimaldi, David A (2023): COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF THE INSECT TRACHEAL SYSTEM PART 1: INTRODUCTION, APTERYGOTES, PALEOPTERA, POLYNEOPTERA. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 459 (1): 1-184, DOI: 10.5531/sd.sp.55, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5531/sd.sp.55

Pseudochelidura cantabrica Cuesta-Segura, Jurado-Angulo & García-París sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 62F051DC-0763-4A90-A97B-A5F4E79FFFDC Figs 3–8 Diagnosis Dry-mounted specimens light brown, although the head may remain somewhat orange. In living specimens, anterior part of body orange more or less intense (head, first antennomere, pronotum, tegmina and legs), sometimes with darkened areas (Figs 4–5). Antennae light brown, with 12 antennomeres; antennomere 1 almost equally long than 2–3 combined. All antennomeres pubescent; a dense, fine and white pubescence covers from the middle of the third antennomere, less frequently from the fourth, to the apical end. Postfrontal sutures do not reach the eyes generally. Pronotum smooth, 1.2 times as long as wide, parallel-sided or slightly wider posteriorly. Tegmina short, truncated obliquely. Wings reduced to a small scale that can be perceived beneath the tegmina. Abdomen reddish brown to blackish brown, darkened toward the posterior end, cerci blackish brown. Tegument surface punctate, shiny. Total body length without cerci: ♂♂: 7.00– 10.06 mm (mean = 8.77 mm; n = 16); ♀♀: 8.25–10.62 mm (mean = 9.10; n = 18). Length of cerci: ♂♂: 2.13–4.00 mm (mean = 2.47; n = 16); ♀♀: 1.83–2.10 mm (mean = 1.95; n = 18) (Table 3). Etymology The name ‘ cantabrica ’ is a feminine gender Latin adjective derived from ‘ cantabricus ’ that means belonging to or related to the Cantabrian Sea or the land adjacent to that sea, reason for which the mountain range parallel to this sea is called Cantabrian Mountains, in Spanish ‘Cordillera Cantábrica’. Type material Holotype SPAIN • ♂; “España, Castilla y León: León: Torrestío, Puerto de La Farrapona, 43°02′51″ N, 6°05′18″ W, 1651 m, 17-IX-2017, A.D. Cuesta-Segura leg. // MNCN_Ent 167418 // Holotipo Pseudochelidura cantabrica Cuesta-Segura, Jurado-Angulo & García-París, des. 2022” [red label, printed]; MNCN_Ent 167418 (Figs 6–7). Paratypes All carrying a red or white label printed (if preserved in ethanol) with “Paratipo Pseudochelidura cantabrica Cuesta-Segura, Jurado-Angulo & Gª-París, 2022”, from the following localities: (1) Dry mounted specimens SPAIN – Asturias • 18 ♂♂, 12 ♀♀; Valle del Lago, Somiedo; 1565 m a.s.l.; 26–30 Jul. 1949; Exp. Inst. Esp. Entomología leg.; MNCN_Ent 123702, 123706 to 123716, 123718 to 123722, 123724, 123726 to 123737 • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 4–12 Aug. 1949; MNCN_Ent 123717 • 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 20–30 Jul. 1950; MNCN_Ent 123703, 123725, 123738, 123739 • 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 1–10 Aug. 1950; MNCN_Ent 123704, 123705, 123741, 123742 • 1 ♂; Puerto de Leitariegos; 1575 m a.s.l.; 1–10 Aug. 1950; Exp. Inst. Esp. Entomología leg.; MNCN_Ent 123723 • 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 1675 m a.s.l.; 1–10 Aug. 1950; Exp. Inst. Esp. Entomología leg.; MNCN_Ent 123740, 123743 • 8 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀; Puerto de Ventana; 43°3′31.6″ N, 6°0′10.02″ W; 1603 m a.s.l.; 19 Aug. 2017; ADC-S leg.; MNCN_Ent 167422, 167424, 167428, 167429, 167438 to 167441, 167446, 167455, 167468, 167469, 167478, 167499 to 167501, 167503. – Castilla y León: León • 1 ♂; Puerto de Vegarada; 43°2′17.08″ N, 5°28′42.39″ W; 1560 m a.s.l.; 1–23 Aug. 2008; ADC-S leg.; in pitfall trap; MNCN_Ent 167420 • 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for preceding; 43°01′54.95″ N, 5°28′34.17″ W; 1684 m a.s.l.; 15 Jul. 2021; ADC-S leg.; ADC-S col. Derm_0005, 0006 • 1 ♂, 5 ♀♀; Puerto de Ventana; 43°03′13.5″ N, 6°0′31.6″ W; 1559 m a.s.l.; 19 Aug. 2017; ADC-S leg.; MNCN_Ent 167431, 167434, 167442, 167444, 167447, 167498 • 4 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 43°03′11.3″ N, 6°00′09.6″ W; 1543 m a.s.l.; 20 Aug. 2017; ADC-S leg.; MNCN_Ent 167421, 167430, 167432, 167433, 167435 to 167437, 167445, 167448, 167475, 167479, 167497 • 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 43°03′26.3″ N, 6°00′11.7″ W; 1590 m a.s.l.; 20 Aug. 2017; ADC-S leg.; MNCN_Ent 167443, 167476, 167477 • 19 ♂♂, 19 ♀♀; Torrestío, Puerto de La Farrapona; 43°2′51.99″ N, 6°5′18.10″ W; 1651 m a.s.l.; 17 Sep. 2017; ADC-S and M. Sánchez Gutiérrez leg.; MNCN_Ent 167419, 167423, 167425 to 167427, 167456 to 167467, 167470 to 167474, 167481 to 167483, 167485 to 167496, 167502 • 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; ADC-S col. Derm_0001 to Derm_0004, Derm_0007. (2) Ethanol preserved specimens SPAIN – Castilla y León: León • 5 ♂♂; Puerto de Vegarada; 43°01′54.95″ N, 5°28′34.17″ W; 1684 m a.s.l.; 22 Aug. 2017; ADC-S leg.; MNCN_Ent 331219 to 331223 • 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀, 3 nymphs; Puerto de Ventana; 43°03′27″ N, 6°00′15″ W; 1588 m a.s.l.; 15 Sep. 2011; M. García-París and P. Pavón leg.; MNCN_Ent 331179 to 331185 • 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀, 3 nymphs; same collection data as for preceding; 16 Sep. 2011; M. García-París and P. Pavón leg.; MNCN_Ent 331172 to 331178. Description Male (holotype, MNCN_Ent 167418) GENERAL ASPECT AND COLORATION. Male specimen, large, robust with the maximum width at posterior third of body (Figs 6–7). General coloration oflive specimen reddish brown; head lighter, almost orange; pronotum, tegminae, legs and first abdominal segments, also lighter, dark-orange to honey-yellow; pronotum and tegminae somewhat transparent, not homogeneously colored because of the subjacent structures; eyes deep-black, antennae brownish, densely covered by short decumbent setae that provides gray hue to general appearance, specially to central and apical tergites; abdominal segments chestnutbrown with anterior portion of each segment lighter, dark-red; cerci chestnut-brown colored darkened toward basis (Fig. 7). MEASUREMENTS. Total body length without cerci of 9.38 mm. Cerci length 4.00 mm (Table 3). HEAD. Transverse (1.97 mm maximum width; 1.48 mm length without clypeus), about 0.75 times as long as wide (Fig. 6). Postfrontal and coronal sutures fine but distinct, postfrontal sutures shorter than distance between them and eyes. Two deep transverse short incisions internal to eyes. Frons flat, slightly darkened. Posterior margin of the head feebly emarginated at middle. Eyes black, almost triangularly shaped, length approximately 0.5 times that of head behind eyes. Antennae with 12 antennomeres (right one missing two); antennomere I long (0.48 mm), narrowed basally, widened terminally, almost equal to antennomeres II–III combined (I/II+III = 0.97); antennomere II short (0.14 mm), but longer than wider; antennomere III (0.34 mm) longer than antennomere IV (0.26 mm), slightly widened terminally. Antennomeres II–III cylindrical, all others sub-conical. All antennomeres pubescent; dense, fine and white pubescence from middle of third antennomere to apical end. Maxillary palpi with articles I and II relatively long but shorter than third, sub-cylindrical and slightly widened distally. Article III subellipsoidal, elongated, with very thin base. PRONOTUM. Smooth, subquadrate (1.67 mm long, 2.04 wide; 1.22 times as wide as long), sides slightly widened posteriorly (Fig. 6). Anterior margin nearly straight, anterior angles with well-marked ridge that continues along lateral margin, sometimes less clearly marked. Posterior margin rounded. Median sulcus fine but distinct up to half of pronotum. Mesonotum and metanotum not visible. Sternal plates typical for genus. Tegmina short, truncated, with inner edge shorter than outer, clearly wider than pronotum and wider at end than at base. Wings reduced to small scale visible under tegmina. LEGS. With femora and tibiae compressed. Profemora much more swollen meso- and metafemora, with more than 15 strong setae on inside of anterior side, a few setae on mesofemora and none on metafemora. Tibiae covered with thick and fine golden setae. Three tarsal segments, metatarsomere I long and subcylindrical, longer than pro- and mesotarsomeres, II spatulated, incorporating insertion of third, III elongated widened distally accommodating two strong curved claws, directed ventrally. Length of metatarsomere I (0.78 mm) almost equal to metatarsomeres II and III combined (0.76 mm; I/II+III = 0.94). ABDOMEN. Stout, relatively long and depressed, slightly widened in posterior third; fine and densely punctate; tergites convex (Fig. 6). Lateral glandular folds feeble-marked almost as scars, well visible on tergites 3–4. Last tergite transverse; surface partially rugose and punctuated. Penultimate sternite with semicircular posterior margin, with slightly prominent apex. Last tergite with slightly concave sides; slightly broadened posteriorly. Posterior margin of last tergite rounded and very slightly elevated. Pygidium completely visible, very wide, rectangular. Cerci long, sinuous and curved, with two teeth very apparent. First one (dorsal tooth) at base of cerci, in dorsal position and of triangular shape, dorsointernally directed and with apex pointing forward; visible in dorsal and lateral views. Second one (internal tooth) is at approximately ³/5 of the length of cerci, in ventro-internal position, laminar and triangle-shaped with broad base, visible in dorsal and ventral views. GENITALIA. Robust (described from large number of paratypes, Fig. 8A). Metaparameres fully developed, short, robust, straight and slightly narrowed at apex and with obtuse or rounded tips slightly directed inwards. Virga almost straight, slightly sinuous and short, shorter than metaparameres. Basal vesicle relatively small, kidney-shaped, strongly curved, with small sclerotized plate lacking supplementary sac associated to basal vesicle (present in smaller specimens) (Fig. 8A). Variability in males Male cerci and last tergite extremely variable, but most specimens can be classified in four different phenotypes (I, II, III, and IV) (Figs 3–4, 7). In addition to these phenotypes, there are also specimens with intermediate characteristics (I–II, II–III, and III–IV) (Figs 3–4). Phenotype IV: as described in the holotype. Phenotype III: last tergite with slightly concave sides; slightly broadened posteriorly; posterior margin with central protuberance projected upwards and rough at its edge; with the posterior side slightly inclined forward and visible in dorsal view, leaving the pygidium completely visible. Pygidium very wide, rectangular. Cerci symmetrical, broad at the base and separated from each other, medium size (2.81 mm) and curved, with a digitiform tooth at the inner edge located approximately ⅓ of its length, which is initially directed inwards and then upwards. In lateral view, these teeth do not protrude or protrude very slightly from the upper part of the cerci, which are slightly convex. The cerci in their final ⅔ are narrower, being of almost round section, except for a flat area located interno-ventrally clearly visible in ventral view. Phenotype II: last tergite with parallel sides, with a median longitudinal furrow not very marked but visible; posterior margin with a triangular central protuberance projected backwards that partially or totally covers the pygidium. Pygidium narrow. Cerci similar to phenotype III, except for their smaller size (2.24 mm) and by the more robust digitiform tooth. In lateral view, these teeth protrude slightly but clearly from the upper part of the cerci. Phenotype I: last tergite with parallel sides, with a median longitudinal furrow not very marked but visible; posterior margin with a central protuberance emarginated, paralleled to the body axis; this protuberance covers partially or totally the pygidium. Pygidium narrow. Cerci symmetrical, long (2.37 mm), broad at the base but clearly separated from each other, short and slightly curved, thinner and longer than in phenotype II; with a robust triangular tooth at the inner edge located near to the base and tilted up about 45 degrees. In lateral view, cerci are practically straight; the inner teeth do not protrude or protrude very slightly in lateral view. The cerci in their apical ⅔ are tapering, with almost round section, except for a flat section area located interno-ventrally visible in ventral view. Males of P. cantabrica sp. nov. have fully developed metaparameres, slightly narrowed at the apex and with obtuse or rounded tips (Fig. 8). However, just as there is variability in the morphology of male cerci, there is also intraspecific variability in male genitalia, including the size of the parameres and the basal vesicle shape. Small specimens present a supplementary sac associated to the basal vesicle, which is absent in large specimens (phenotype III–IV). The latter (phenotype III–IV) present a small sclerotized plate on the basal vesicle. Female Similar to male in most characters except last tergite with slightly concave sides, clearly narrowed posteriorly; with a median longitudinal furrow. Two very small protuberances on the posterior margin, just above the insertion of the cerci. Female cerci have simple and straight contiguous branches, short, wide at the base and slightly curved inwards just at the apex (Fig. 5A–B). Eggs Eggs ivory yellow (Fig. 5D). Some may be somewhat deformed, presenting small flat areas by contact with other eggs. The egg masses remain grouped. Eleven eggs laid in captivity by one female from Puerto de La Farrapona were measured (average, minimum-maximum measures): length (mean = 1.15 mm, range = 1.13–1.17 mm, n = 11), width (mean = 0.94 mm, range = 0.92–0.95 mm, n = 11) and a length/width ratio (mean = 1.22 mm, range = 1.18–1.27 mm, n = 11). Nymphs A female from Puerto de Vegarada with 34 1 st instar nymphs was held for study. As the nymphal stages aged, the number of antennomeres, the width of the head and the length of the body and cerci increase (Table 4). Width of head seems reliable to determine nymphal stage, since ranges across stages do not overlap. The rest of the characteristics are common for the different nymphal stages (Fig. 5C). 1 st and 2 nd instar: head and dorsum of body dark. Legs almost transparent except for femora with central ring and base of tibiae slightly darkened. Dark antennomeres, pale at both ends. Postfrontal sutures reaching eyes and coronal suture extending to first abdominal segment, this included. Cerci with very fine granulation on inner edge, only visible under stereo microscope. From 3 rd instar on: body completely dark, except light legs. Darkened ring of femora generally wider, occupying almost basal half. Anterior half of tibiae darkened. Cerci with marked granulation on interior edge. Comparisons Pseudochelidura cantabrica sp. nov. differs morphologically from all other species of the genus (P. sinuata, P. galvagnii and P. orsinii) and also genetically from the more similar species, P. sinuata. Male cerci are extremely variable in P. cantabrica sp. nov. and P. sinuata (Figs 2–4, 9), with marked differences in the shape of the cerci of the larger males: phenotypes III–IV (Figs 2E, 3E) and IV (Figs 2F, 3F), but not so clear across other phenotypes (Cuesta-Segura 2012). In the phenotype III–IV, the internal tooth located at ⅓ of the cerci is almost non-existent in P. cantabrica, while it is very distinct, flat, with a curved anterior edge and a straight posterior edge in P. sinuata. In addition, P. cantabrica has slightly marked internal teeth, located at ½ of the cerci, which do not exist in P. sinuata. Males of P. sinuata phenotype IV have longer cerci and a more marked dorsal tooth at its base than in P. cantabrica. The internal teeth in P. sinuata are at ¼ of the cerci, triangle-shaped with a narrow base, pointing posteriorly, and are visible in dorsal, ventral and lateral views. However, the internal teeth of P. cantabrica are at approximately ³/5 of the cerci, triangle-shaped with a very wide base, pointing inwards and visible only in dorsal and ventral views. Differences in cerci between males of phenotypes I, II and III are subtle, involving teeth shape and direction (see Figs 2–3). Females are so far indistinguishable. Steinmann (1979, 1981) provided an illustration of the male genitalia of three phenotypes (II, III and IV) of P. sinuata (sub P. sinuata, P. montuosa and P. minor) from the Pyrenees. The genitalia of male specimens from the Pyrenees (MNCN_Ent 123583, 123639, 123640) match the description presented by Steinmann (1979, 1981) and Albouy & Caussanel (1990). Male genitalia of P. sinuata and P. cantabrica sp. nov. do not differ significantly. Both species have metaparameres fully developed, slightly narrowed at the apex and with obtuse or rounded tips. The virga is relatively short and thick and is located within the genital lobe, with a basal vesicle of the “forficuloid” type (Steinmann 1979). Our study supports Steinmann’s (1979, 1981) descriptions of phenotypes II (sub P. minor) and III (sub P. montuosa) differing from phenotype IV by showing a supplementary sac associated to the basal vesicle. Small specimens of P. cantabrica also present a supplementary sac associated to the basal vesicle. In addition, phenotype IV of P. sinuata and P. cantabrica presents a small sclerotized plate on the basal vesicle. Male cerci of P. galvagnii and P. orsinii show limited morphological diversity when compared with those of P. cantabrica sp. nov. and P. sinuata. Vigna-Taglianti (1999: figs 7–9) reported two main phenotypes in P. galvagnii. A first one with large curved cerci, very similar to those of P. cantabrica (Fig. 3F) with a dorsal tooth near the base and a long laminar ventrolateral internal projection and a second one with long, thinner cerci, slightly curved, almost straight, with a reduced dorsal tooth and a poorly developed ventrolateral internal projection. This second phenotype (Vigna-Taglianti 1999: fig. 9) does not show correspondence in P. cantabrica, where all males present markedly curved cerci. Large curved cerci of the first phenotype in P. galvagnii (Vigna-Taglianti 1999: figs 7–8) present a series of internal denticles at the dorsal projection level, that are totally absent in P. cantabrica. Male virga of P. galvagnii is markedly arcua, Published as part of Cuesta-Segura, Amonio David, Jurado-Angulo, Pilar, Jiménez-Ruiz, Yolanda & García-París, Mario, 2023, Taxonomy of the Iberian species of Pseudochelidura (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), pp. 81-115 in European Journal of Taxonomy 860 (1) on pages 93-105, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.860.2053, http://zenodo.org/record/7674418, {"references":["Cuesta-Segura A. D. 2012. Descubrimiento de Pseudochelidura minor (Steinmann, 1979) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) en la Cordillera Cantabrica (noroeste de la Peninsula Iberica). Boletin de la Sociedad entomologica Aragonesa 50: 512.","Steinmann H. 1979. The Dermaptera in the PAN Zoologiczny Instytut, Warszawa. Folia Entomologica Hungarica 32: 149 - 175.","Steinmann H. 1981. The Dermaptera of the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum Kobenhavn. Folia Entomologica Hungarica 42: 173 - 192.","Caussanel C., Albouy V. & Cloupeau R. 1990. Un dermaptere nouveau pour la France, Pseudochelidura montuosa Steinmann, 1981. Les problemes poses par le genre [Derm. Forficulidae]. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 95: 175 - 181. https: // doi. org / 10.3406 / bsef. 1990.17650","Germar E. F. 1825. Fauna insectorum Europae. Fasciculus 11. Kummel, Halle a. S. [Halae], 25 pls. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 127926","Maccagno T. 1933. I Dermatteri Italiani. Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia Comparata della R. Universita di Torino (ser. 3) 43 (40): 241 - 296.","Harz K. & Kaltenbach A. 1976. Die Orthopteren Europas III - The Orthoptera of Europe III. W. Junk, The Hague. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / 978 - 94 - 017 - 2513 - 2","Lapeira A. & Pascual F. 1980. Estudio preliminar de los dermapteros de la fauna iberica. Trabajos Monograficos del Departamento de Zoologia de la Universidad de Granada (n. s.) 3 (4) [1977]: 53 - 99.","Finot A. 1887. Description de Forficula lesnei. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France, Bulletin entomologique: clxxxix - cxc. Available fromhttps: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / page / 8231281 [accessed 11 Jan. 2023].","Bivar de Sousa A. 1997. Dermapteros (Insecta: Dermaptera) novos ou pouco conhecidos para Portugal Continental. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia 6 (17): 229 - 241.","Neira Artidiello I. 2009. Nuevos datos de Pseudochelidura sinuata (La Fresnaye, 1825) para Asturias (Espana) (Dermaptera, Forficulidae). Boletin de la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa 44: 492.","Cuesta-Segura A. D. 2016. Respuesta de las Comunidades de Artropodos a las Perturbaciones y a los Cambios en la Estructura de la Vegetacion en Ecosistemas de Matorral de la Cordillera Cantabrica. PhD thesis, Universidad de Leon, Espana.","Fabricius J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae sistens insectorvm classes, ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibvs, observationibvs. Kortius, Flensburg and Leipzig. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 36510","Verhoeff K. W. 1902. Uber Dermapteren. Versuch eines neuen, naturlicheren Systems auf vergleichend morphologischer Grundlage und uber den Mikrothorax der Insecten. Zoologischer Anzeiger 25: 181 - 208."]}

Pseudochelidura sinuata (Germar, 1825) Forficula sinuata Germar, 1825: 16. Terra typica: “Habitat in Pyrenaeis”. Forficula dufourii Serville, 1839: 49, pl. 1 (non F. dufouri Desmarest, 1820). Terra typica: “ France meridionale. Feu”. ? Forficula pyrenaea Herrich-Schäffer, 1840: 31. Terra typica not indicated. A synonym of either Chelidura pyrenaica (Mégerlé, 1825) or P. sinuata (Germar, 1825) (Herrich-Schäffer 1840). Forficula sinuata var. macrolabia Fieber, 1853: 256. Terra typica: not specified. Forficula sinuata var. cyclolabia Fieber, 1853: 256. Terra typica: not specified. Chelidura sinuata var. opisthogona Borelli, 1905: 50. Terra typica: “... Port-de-Gavarnie,... massif de l’Astajou,... environs de Gavarnie”. Harz & Kaltenbach (1976: 97) and Herrera Mesa (1999: 59) wrote the name as “ Chelidura sinuata var. opithogona ”. Pseudochelidura minor Steinmann, 1979: 167 syn. nov. Terra typica: “Pic du Midi, Pyrennes”. Pseudochelidura montuosa Steinmann, 1981: 189 syn. nov. Terra typica: “ Andorra ”. Chelidura sinuata – Fischer von Waldheim 1846: 48. Chelidura dufouri – Dohrn 1867: 342 (unavailable name). Pseudochelidura sinuata – Verhoeff 1902: 196. Pseudochelidura dufouri – Albouy 1984: 177 (unavailable name). Two additional names have been included or mentioned as possible synonyms of Pseudochelidura sinuata: Chelidura vittigera Fischer von Waldheim, 1846 and Forficula paupercula Gené, 1832. The type locality of C. vittigera “dans le Caucase” and its original description, based on a single female specimen, make us exclude the name from the synonymy of P. sinuata. The correct allocation of C. vittigera requires the examination of new specimens from the Caucasus, but according to the location it should likely be placed in the genus Chelidura as originally proposed by Fischer von Waldheim (1846). Fontana (1999) discussed the problematic situation of F. paupercula. The name was applied to a single male specimen from the “Alpi della Savoia” (Gené 1832) apparently lost (Fontana 1999). Harz & Kaltenbach (1976) treated F. paupercula as an independent species within Pseudochelidura, but according to Fontana (1999) the specimens examined by Harz & Kaltenbach (1976) were not part of the type series of Gené’s F. paupercula, representing a phenotype of Pseudochelidura similar to P. minor, but not matching the original description of F. paupercula. Gené’s (1832) description of F. paupercula does not support its inclusion in the synonymy of any species of Pseudochelidura, including P. sinuata, as already mentioned by different authors that assimilated the name to Chelidura aptera (including de Bormans & Krauss 1900; Sakai 1995), however a detailed prospection of the Savoyan Alps is needed to confirm the presence of populations of Pseudochelidura in the region (considered possible by Harz & Kaltenbach 1976 and Albouy & Caussanel 1990). The results of these prospections would allow for a proper discussion of Gené’s F. paupercula., Published as part of Cuesta-Segura, Amonio David, Jurado-Angulo, Pilar, Jiménez-Ruiz, Yolanda & García-París, Mario, 2023, Taxonomy of the Iberian species of Pseudochelidura (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), pp. 81-115 in European Journal of Taxonomy 860 (1) on page 107, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.860.2053, http://zenodo.org/record/7674418, {"references":["Germar E. F. 1825. Fauna insectorum Europae. Fasciculus 11. Kummel, Halle a. S. [Halae], 25 pls. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 127926","Serville J. G. A. 1839. Histoire naturelle des Insects - Orthopteres. Librairie encyclopedique de Roret, Paris. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 16081","Desmarest A. G. 1820. Faune francaise, ou Histoire naturelle, generale et particuliere des animaux qui se trouvent en France, constamment ou passagerement, a la surface du sol, dans les eaux qui le baignent, et dans le lit. Insectes Orthopteres. Chez Rapet, Paris.","Herrich-Schaffer G. A. 1840. Nomenclator entomologicus: Verzeichniss der europaischen Insecten; zur Erleichterung des Tauschverkehrs mit Preisen versehen. Zweites Heft. Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Dermatoptera und Hymenoptera. Pustet, Regensburg. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 34052","Fieber F. X. 1853. Synopsis der europaischen Orthopteren. Lotos. Zeitschrift fur Naturwissenschaften 3: 252 - 258.","Borelli A. 1905. Sur quelques forficules des Pyrenees. La Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes serie IV 35: 49 - 51.","Harz K. & Kaltenbach A. 1976. Die Orthopteren Europas III - The Orthoptera of Europe III. W. Junk, The Hague. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / 978 - 94 - 017 - 2513 - 2","Herrera Mesa L. 1999. Catalogo de los Dermapteros de Espana. Newbook, Navarra.","Steinmann H. 1979. The Dermaptera in the PAN Zoologiczny Instytut, Warszawa. Folia Entomologica Hungarica 32: 149 - 175.","Steinmann H. 1981. The Dermaptera of the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum Kobenhavn. Folia Entomologica Hungarica 42: 173 - 192.","Fischer von Waldheim G. 1846. Entomographie Rossicae IV: Orthoptera Imperii Rossici. Nouveaux memoires de la Societe Imperiale des naturalistes de Moscou 8. Available from https: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / page / 54252057 [accessed 11 Jan. 2023].","Dohrn H. 1867. Versuch einer Monographie der Dermapteren. Entomologische Zeitung 28 (7 - 9): 341 - 343. Available from https: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / page / 33831408 [accessed 11 Jan. 2023].","Verhoeff K. W. 1902. Uber Dermapteren. Versuch eines neuen, naturlicheren Systems auf vergleichend morphologischer Grundlage und uber den Mikrothorax der Insecten. Zoologischer Anzeiger 25: 181 - 208.","Albouy V. 1984. Liste des dermapteres des collections du MNHN (Paris), suivie de quelques elements de bibliographie (Dermaptera). Entomologica Gallica 1: 169 - 185.","Gene G. 1832. Saggio di una Monografia delle Forficule indigene. Annali delle Scienze del Regno Lombardo-Veneto 2: 215 - 228.","Fontana P. 1999. The type specimens of Forficula described by Gene in 1832, at present belonging to the genus Chelidura Latreille, 1825 (Insecta Dermaptera). Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino 16: 127 - 150.","de Bormans A. & Krauss H. 1900. Forficulidae und Hemimeridae. Das Tierreich 11, R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. Available from https: // www. biodiversitylibrary. org / page / 43101643 # page / 11 / mode / 1 up [accessed 3 Feb. 2023].","Sakai S. 1995. Dermapterorum Catalogus, XXVII: Iconographia XI. A basic Survey for Integrated Taxonomy of the Dermaptera of the World. Daito Bunka University, Tokyo.","Caussanel C., Albouy V. & Cloupeau R. 1990. Un dermaptere nouveau pour la France, Pseudochelidura montuosa Steinmann, 1981. Les problemes poses par le genre [Derm. Forficulidae]. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 95: 175 - 181. https: // doi. org / 10.3406 / bsef. 1990.17650"]}

Male cerci variability was used as the main source of information to separate taxonomic units in the genus Pseudochelidura. Based on these data it was considered that three species of Pseudochelidura coexisted in the Pyrenees: P. sinuata, P. minor and P. montuosa. However, our phylogeographic and phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data (mitochondrial cytb and nuclear ITS2) do not support those conclusions. Combining these analyses with morphological studies we concluded that: 1) the Pyrenees are inhabited by a single evolutionary unit: P. sinuata (Germar, 1825) (= P. minor Steinmann, 1979 syn. nov.,= P. montuosa Steinmann, 1981 syn. nov.). 2) Cantabrian and Pyrenean populations are reciprocally monophyletic and morphologically diagnosable representing two independent evolutionary units: PseudocheliduracantabricaCuesta-Segura, Jurado-Angulo & García-París sp. nov. and P. sinuata. And, 3) their conservation status needs to be evaluated in the light of current taxonomic changes. We have shown that the use of male cerci for species identification is problematic. Patterns of variation possibly affected by sexual selection (e.g., intrapopulational variability) appear to be very difficult to separate from variation driven by natural selection or genetic drift (i.e., character divergence in geographical isolation). The large sequence divergence observed between Pyrenean and Cantabrian populations of Pseudochelidura suggest a lasting genetic and geographic isolation between them, rendering difficult to ascertain their phylogenetic relationships., This work was partially funded by the Spanish Government project-grant PID2019-110243GB-100 / AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) to MG-P.

In establishing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plans for understudied pests, it is crucial to understand the nature of their herbivory and resulting damage. European earwig (Forficula auricularia L.; Dermaptera: Forficulidae) densities are increasing in citrus orchards in Central California. Field observations suggest that earwigs feed on young, developing citrus fruit, but this hypothesis had not been examined with formal experimentation. Forktailed bush katydid nymphs (Scudderia furcata Brunner von Wattenwyl; Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) are well-known citrus herbivores that feed on young citrus fruit, and it is possible that earwig damage may be misdiagnosed as katydid damage. Here we report findings from two field experiments in navel oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck; Sapindales: Rutaceae) that together tested: (1) whether earwigs damage young citrus fruit; (2) whether the amount of damage earwigs generate differs across developmental stage or sex of adult earwigs; (3) the window of time during which fruit are most sensitive to earwig damage; (4) whether damaged fruit are retained to harvest; and (5) the resulting damage morphology caused by earwigs relative to katydids. Earwigs, particularly nymphs, chewed deep holes in young citrus fruit from 0 to 3 wk after petal fall. Fruit damaged by earwigs were retained and exhibited scars at harvest. The morphology and distribution of scars on mature fruit only subtly differed between earwigs and katydids. This study establishes that earwigs can be direct pests in mature navel orange trees by generating scars on fruit and likely contribute to fruit quality downgrades.

Since it is not possible, after several years of research, to locate the type material of Chelidura aptera (Megerle in Charpentier, 1825), type species of the genus Chelidura latreille, 1825, and not being able to define in any way, even vaguely, the terra typica, it was decided to fix a neotype. This neotype is here selected on the basis of its matching with the original description and with the support of molecular data. Three Alpine populations, two Italian and one Swiss, of what is actually considered C. aptera were sampled and sequenced; COI sequences were then compared with Chelidura pyrenaica arverna David & Van Herrewege, 1973 from the Massif Central in France, and other species of the genera Chelidurella, Mesochelidura and Forficula. The separation between C. aptera and C. pyrenaica is strongly supported by DNA barcodes and substantial differences among the three Alpine populations have been detected. The genetically intermediate among the Alpine populations (Italy, Piedmont (Biella), Pennine Alps, lago del Mucrone) is chosen as neotype of Chelidura aptera, furthermore largely matching the original description. Further genetic and morphological investigations will clarify the relations among the Alpine populations and in the early future we expect to extend the analyzes to the majority of the Alpine and non-Alpine populations of Chelidura. In addition, the updated view about the taxonomy and distribution of Chelidura and the first illustration of male genitalia of Chelidura pyrenaica arverna David & Van Herrewege, 1973 are provided.

BACKGROUND The European earwig, Forficula auricularia (L.) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), is regarded as an important beneficial in many orchard environments but has the potential to be a plant pest in other systems, including to grain crops. Due to its agricultural importance, the lifecycle of F. auricularia has been widely studied in North America and Europe. However, much less is known in the southern hemisphere, including Australia where F. auricularia has been present for over 170 years. RESULTS To elucidate the lifecycle of F. auricularia, we monitored five sites in grain‐growing areas of southern Australia using two different trap types. Adults were found year‐round, but most prevalent from late‐spring to mid‐winter. First instars were typically found from mid to late winter. Second, third and fourth instars occurred from winter through to late spring. The seasonal development of F. auricularia in Australia may be much earlier than observed in comparable North American studies. Degree day modelling highlights variation in development times across the active season for F. auricularia across our sites. CONCLUSION Forficula auricularia is well adapted to the Australian grain growing environments. The timing of egg hatching aligns closely with crop emergence, juveniles then develop alongside the crop, and adult development occurs by harvest time in late spring. These findings are important given that many of these crops (canola, lucerne, pulses) are vulnerable to attack by F. auricularia during emergence and development. They also suggest a phenotypic capacity of this species to adapt different phenology after introduction into a novel environment. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry., The lifecycle of Forficula auricularia in grain crops is presented. We found that the Australian populations of Forficula auricularia may develop much earlier than observed in comparable North American studies. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Most studies about the European earwigForficula auriculariaL. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) assume that four larval moults occur from hatching to adult. In this note, we use observational and quantitative approaches to reveal the presence of an additional intermediate moult occurring immediately after egg hatching. We then briefly discuss how this finding may open up new possibilities for follow-up studies to improve our general understanding of the taxonomy, biology, and evolution of this species.

El chayote (Sechium edule, (Jacq.) Swartz) es una hortaliza versátil; se aprovechan raíces, tallos, hojas, zarcillos, semilla, frutos y puntas de las guías. El objetivo primordial de este estudio fue identificar abundancia, riqueza, índice de diversidad, fluctuación poblacional y el hábito de las principales familias de insectos asociados al chayote. La investigación es cualitativa de tipo no experimental, fundamentada en el método descriptivo, se realizó en el periodo de enero a mayo del 2017 en las comunidades Molino Sur y El Caracol, municipio de Sébaco, departamento de Matagalpa, en dos fincas donde se colocaron 12 trampas para insectos, se realizó una recolección de hojas para extraer, identificar y clasificar insectos chupadores. Se identificó 65 especies de insectos y una de arácnidos pertenecientes a 46 familias de 12 órdenes, entre las principales familias destacan: Nitidulidae, Vespidae, Chrysopidae, Forficulidae, Noctuidae, Formicidae, Muscidae y Gryllidae. La diversidad insectil se estimó utilizando el índice de Simpson, la finca Sarsalosa posee más abundancia en especies por familias de insectos y la finca Las Vegas presentó la mayor diversidad. La distribución temporal de las familias más importantes fueron Nitidulidae, Vespidae, Chrysopidae, Forficulidae y Noctuidae, con polífagos, filófagos, necrófagos, rizófagos, zoófagos, nectarívoro, fitófagos, omnívoro y saprófago, como principales hábitos alimenticios.

Ground dwelling insects, spiders, and other arthropods play an important role in agroecosystems as predators and saprophytic organisms. Their presence on the soil surface helps the biological control of pests, enhances organic matter decomposition and promotes biodiversity. Soil disturbance, particularly tilling and mowing has greatly affected the assemblage and abundance of epigeic arthropods. This study aimed to determine the effects of herbaceous vegetation cover mowing height on arthropods abundance and structure in olive orchards. The experimental site was divided into three zones (Z1, Z2, and Z3) regarding mowing heights (0 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm ). This research was done in 2019 from the beginning of May untill the end of September. During this research, 1490 individuals were recorded belonging to 6 classes, 11 orders and 13 families. The number of individuals was higher in the zones Z2 and Z3 comparing with Z1. The highest number of individuals showed woodlices (Isopoda) comprising 67, 5% of all individuals collected. There were significant differences in the number of Carabidae, Bleteliidae and Forficulidae between the zones of research. Unlike Forficulidae, higher heights of mown positively affected the population of Carabidae and Blateliidae.

We report the discovery that the earwig predator Doru luteipes (Scudder, 1876) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) feed on Puccinia polysora Underw uredospore, the causal agent of Southern Rust of Corn (SRC), which is a primary disease affecting the maize crop in Brazil. We performed experiments in laboratory and greenhouse to test the effect of D. luteipes (1st/2nd and 3rd/4th instars, and adults) fungivory on the P. polysora uredospore concentration. All trials showed a significant reduction of the initial concentration of uredospore. There was a reduction in uredospore concentration with increase in number of D. luteipes feeding on them. We also tested the uredospore consumption by quantifying its percentage in the feces of D. luteipes. Nymphs of the 2nd, 4th instar and adults fed 88%, 85%, and 83.8% of the uredospore, respectively. For nymphs of the 3rd instar, the percentage of uredospore consumption (75.6%) was statistically significant compared with the other groups. In greenhouse experiment, at twenty-eight days after plant inoculation with 9.9 x 104 uredospores, the percentage of uredospore consumption was 81.7%. Our results confirmed the fungivory of D. luteipes on P. polysora uredospore. This is the first report of D. luteipes fungivory, which may play an important role in the biological control of P. polysora in corn. Resumo Relatamos a descoberta de que o predador Doru luteipes (Scudder, 1876) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) se alimenta de uredosporos de Puccinia polysora Underw, o agente causal da ferrugem polisora que é uma doença primária que afeta a cultura do milho no Brasil. Realizamos experimentos em laboratório e em casa de vegetação para testar o efeito da fungivoria de D. luteipes (1º/2º e 3º/4º iìstares e adultos) sobre a concentração de uredosporos de P. polysora. Todos os ensaios mostraram uma redução significativa da concentração inicial de uredosporos. Houve uma redução na concentração de uredosporos com o aumento do número de D. luteipes alimentando-se deles. Também testamos o consumo de uredosporos quantificando sua porcentagem nas fezes de D. luteipes. Ninfas do 2º e 4º ínstar, assim como adultos, alimentaram-se de 88%, 85% e 83,8% dos uredosporos, respectivamente. Para ninfas do 3º ínstar, a porcentagem de consumo de uredosporos (75,6%) foi estatisticamente significativo em comparação com os outros grupos. No experimento em casa de vegetação, aos 28 dias após a inoculação das plantas com 9,9 x 104 uredosporos, a porcentagem de consumo de uredosporos foi de 81,7%. Nossos resultados confirmaram a fungivoria de D. luteipes em uredosporos de P. polysora. Este é o primeiro relato de fungivoria de D. luteipes, que pode ter papel importante no controle biológico de P. polysora em milho.

The relatively small order Dermaptera (commonly called “earwigs”) is comprised of more than 1900 described species mainly distributed in the Afrotropics, Southeastern Asia and South America, while a small number of species occur in the warmer temperate regions of North America, Europe, Asia and Australia (Hudson 1973; Popham 2000; Haas et al. 2011). In the Balkans and Turkey, this insect order is understudied and knowledge about the distribution and ecology of the earwig fauna is scattered (Haas & Henderickx 2002; Anlaş et al. 2010; Anlaş & Kočárek 2012; Muranyi 2013; Haas 2015). In Greece 16 species have been recorded so far (Haas 2015, 2018), showing greater diversity than other countries in the Balkans (Muranyi 2013). From the poorly studied North Aegean Islands, four earwig species are reported (Haas 2015), namely Anisolabis maritima (Bonelli, 1832), Forficula auricularia Linnaeus, 1758, F. lurida Fischer, 1853 and Labidura riparia (Pallas, 1773).

[EN] Forficula iberica Steinmann, 1981 was described from Spain (Province of Zaragoza), but since its description it has remained an unknown taxon, usually ignored or treated as a synonym of F. auricularia Linnaeus, 1758. Field work in central Spain allowed us to collect some specimens of Dermaptera that matched the original description of F. iberica. In addition, the collection of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC, Spain) held some specimens assignable to F. iberica confused among other Iberian species. The main objective of this work is to validate the specific status of F. iberica, report its rediscovery in central Spain, and evaluate the diagnostic characters provided by Steinmann (1981). The original description provided by Steinmann is quite complete, and fits precisely the specimens located in the field or at the MNCN, which cannot be associated to any other species of Forficulidae. The comparison of Steinmann¿s paratypes of F. iberica at the Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum (MTM, Budapest), with the specimens obtained in the field, confirms that they can be assigned to F. iberica. The shape of the tegmina of F. iberica is most similar to that of F. lesnei, but differs from that of G. pubescens (obliquely truncated posteriorly). Shape of the cerci of F. iberica is similar to that of G. pubescens and G. brignolii, but different from that of F. lesnei. The genus Guanchia Burr, 1911 was created based on the shape of tegmina (obliquely truncated), but this character is quite variable. In agreement with Vigna Taglianti (2011), we consider that a phylogenetic study of the subfamily Forficulinae is necessary to revise the generic status of the continental species of Forficula included in Guanchia by Steinmann (1993)., [ES] Forficula iberica Steinmann, 1981, descrita de España (Provincia de Zaragoza), ha permanecido como un taxón desconocido desde su descripción, habitualmente ignorado o incluido en la sinonimia de F. auricularia Linnaeus, 1758. El trabajo de campo en el centro de España nos permitió recolectar algunos ejemplares de Dermaptera que coincidían con la descripción original de F. iberica. Además, la colección del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN-CSIC, España) contenía algunos ejemplares asignables a F. iberica que habían sido confundidos con otras especies ibéricas. El objetivo principal de este trabajo es validar el estado específico de F. iberica, dar a conocer su redescubrimiento en el centro de España y evaluar los caracteres para su diagnóstico aportados por Steinmann (1981). La descripción original proporcionada por Steinmann es bastante completa y se ajusta con precisión a los ejemplares encontrados en el campo o en la colección del MNCN, los cuales no pueden asociarse a ninguna otra especie de Forficulidae. La comparación de los paratipos de Steinmann de F. iberica en el Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum (MTM, Budapest), con los especímenes colectados en el campo, confirma que son asignables a F. iberica. La forma de las tegminas de F. iberica es muy similar a la de F. lesnei, pero difiere de la de G. pubescens (oblicuamente truncadas en la zona posterior). La forma de los cercos de F. iberica es similar a la de G. pubescens y G. brignolii, pero diferente de la de F. lesnei. El género Guanchia Burr, 1911 fue creado con base en la forma de las tegminas (oblicuamente truncadas), sin embargo, este carácter es variable. De acuerdo con Vigna Taglianti (2011), consideramos que es necesario realizar un estudiofilogenético de la subfamilia Forficulinae que permita revisar el status genérico de todas las especies continentales de Forficula incluidas en Guanchiapor Steinmann (1993).

Generalist predators are considered effective biological control agents in many agroecosystems. However, characterizing the behavior of different generalist predator species in realistic field settings is difficult due to challenges associated with directly observing predation events in the field. Here we video recorded woolly apple aphid (Erisoma lanigerum) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) colonies to directly observe the feeding behavior of their generalist predators during the day and night. To observe European earwigs (Forficula auricularia) (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), which are thought to be key woolly apple aphid predators but were not present at our study location, we released earwigs into the study area. Across 1413 h of video recorded over 4 weeks, earwigs made the most attacks on woolly apple aphid colonies, but coccinellid larvae spent more total time attacking because their individual attacks were longer. Antagonistic interactions between predators were rare, and earwigs never antagonized other predators. However, ants commonly antagonized earwigs, and incidence of ant-earwig antagonistic interactions was negatively correlated with earwig-aphid attack rates. Overall, these results suggest that coccinellid larvae and earwigs differ in their feeding behavior in the field, and provide new evidence that ants may hinder aphid biological control by antagonizing earwigs.

Doru luteipes (Scudder, 1876) is an omnivorous predator that finds different food resources in the corn plant: eggs of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797), uredospores of Puccinia polysora (Underw, 1897), and pollen. Knowing the survival and food preferences of this predator is essential to define its relevance as a biological control agent. We hypothesize that the foraging behavior and predatory capacity of D. luteipes may be affected when several food resources, especially eggs of S. frugiperda, uredospores of P. polysora, and pollen are concurrently in the same plant. The survival of D. luteipes in the nymph stage and their preference among food resources, often available in corn plants, were determined. To verify the survival of D. luteipes, newly hatched nymphs were fed exclusively with 1- uredospores of P. polysora, 2- eggs of S. frugiperda, 3- corn pollen, 4- a combination of uredospores + eggs, and 5- artificial diet (control). In another experiment, nymphs and adults of D. luteipes with 24 and 48 hours of fasting were individually released in the center of a container with four diets: 1- uredospores of P. polysora, 2- eggs of S. frugiperda, 3- corn pollen, 4- artificial diet, and maintained for 10 minutes, to evaluate the food choice and feeding time. The exclusive feeding with S. frugiperda eggs caused low nymph survival (8%), but the combination of P. polysora uredospores + S. frugiperda eggs allowed 58.3% survival. D. luteipes preferred feeding during the nighttime and the most significant proportions of choices by nymphs and adults were for pollen and diet, with adults spending more time eating pollen. These findings indicate that the trophic choices of D. luteipes are relevant to understand its contribution as an agent to control pest insects and fungal diseases in corn. Resumo Doru luteipes (Scudder, 1876) é um predador onívoro, que encontra na planta do milho diferentes recursos alimentares: ovos de Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797), uredósporos de Puccinia polysora (Underw, 1897) e pólen. Para definição da relevância desse predador como agente de controle biológico, conhecer a sobrevivência e preferência alimentar é essencial. Nós hipotetizamos que o comportamento de forrageamento e a capacidade de predação de D. luteipes podem ser afetados quando uma mesma planta oferece ovos, uredósporos e pólen, concomitantemente. A sobrevivência de D. luteipes na fase de ninfa e sua preferência entre os recursos alimentares, frequentemente disponíveis nas plantas de milho, foram determinados. Para verificar a sobrevivência de D. luteipes, ninfas recém eclodidas foram alimentadas exclusivamente com 1- uredósporos de P. polysora, 2- ovos de S. frugiperda, 3- pólen de milho, 4- combinação de uredósporos + ovos e 5- dieta artificial (controle). Em outro experimento, ninfas e adultos de D. luteipes com 24 e 48 horas de jejum foram liberadas individualmente, em recipientes contendo quatro dietas: 1- uredósporos de P. polysora, 2- ovos de S. frugiperda, 3- pólen de milho, 4- dieta artificial e mantidas durante 10 min, sendo avaliados a escolha pelo alimento e o tempo de alimentação. A alimentação exclusiva com ovos de S. frugiperda ocasionou baixa sobrevivência das ninfas (8%), porém a combinação de uredósporos de P. polysora + ovos de S. frugiperda possibilitou sobrevivência de 58,3%. D. luteipes preferiu se alimentar durante o período noturno e as maiores proporções de escolhas das ninfas e dos adultos ocorreram no pólen e na dieta, sendo que os adultos gastaram mais tempo se alimentando de pólen. Estas descobertas indicam que as escolhas tróficas de D. luteipes são relevantes para compreender sua contribuição como agente de controle de insetos-praga e doença fúngicas em milho.

Se realizó un estudio preliminar para caracterizar ensambles de artrópodos epígeos en entornos costeros con influencia urbana cerca de la ciudad de El Altet (Alicante, España), que incluyen duna fija, tomillar, duna móvil y vegetación ruderal. Para ello, se realizó una serie de métricas de diversidad y análisis multivariado con base en un relevamiento realizado desde noviembre de 2004 a marzo de 2005. El hábitat de vegetación ruderal (RV) tuvo mayor abundancia y baja diversidad de artrópodos epigeicos, así como predominio de taxones sinantrópicos, principalmente Dermaptera (Forficulidae) e Isopoda (Armadillidae, Porcellionidae). En contraste, el hábitat de dunas móviles (YD) tuvo abundancia intermedia y baja diversidad, con predominio de coleópteros psamófilos, particularmente Tenebrionidae. Mientras que los hábitats de tomillar y duna fija (HD + GD) tuvieron baja abundancia y alta diversidad, siendo Chrysomelidae y Tenebrionidae nativos sus taxones más representativos.

The Pyrenees are inhabited by scattered populations of earwigs of the genus Chelidura Latreille, 1825. There is some controversy about the specific assignment of these populations: while most authors assign them to C. pyrenaica (Gené, 1832), other consider that C. aptera (Mégerlé, 1825) is also present in the Pyrenees. The main objective of this work was to revise the identity and synonyms of Pyrenean Chelidura. Specimens from recent fieldwork and collections (MNCN-CSIC) were used for morphological and molecular studies (cytochrome oxidase 1). All Pyrenean specimens shared similar cox1 sequences, very divergent from those of Alpine C. ap-tera. As a consequence, the variability observed in male cerci morphology from the Pyrenees, ranging from long and slightly curved to short and very curved, corresponded to C. pyrenaica, and the presence of C. aptera in the Pyrenees can be rejected. As previously suggested by Maccagno (1933) and Fontana et al. (2021), the revision of the synonymic list uncovered the misplacement of the name F. simplex Germar, 1825 under the synonymy of C. aptera, while it rather represents a synonym of C. pyrenaica (syn. nov.). Forficula simplex has nomenclatural priority over C. pyrenaica, however both names meet the requirements of the article 23.9.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to retain the prevailing usage of C. pyrenaica (nomen protectum) over F. simplex (nomen oblitum). Additionally, we discuss the taxonomic status of Chelidura arverna David & Van Herrewege, 1973 stat. nov. from the French Massif Central., This work was partially funded by the project grant PID2019-110243GB-100 / AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spain) to MG-P.

International audience; A good knowledge of interactions between natural enemy species is necessary for effective implementation of biological control programmes. This laboratory study aimed at assessing the outcome of intraguild interactions between two generalist predators frequently observed in the colonies of the rosy apple aphid (RAA), Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini (Hemiptera: Aphididae). The level of complementarily between these two species was estimated by the comparison of their individual and combined predation on RAA. Predation by 1st (H1) to 4th (H4) instar larvae of Harmonia axyridis Pallas (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and 3rd (F3) and 4th (F4) instar nymphs of Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) was evaluated for 24 h in Petri dishes using seven different densities (5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100 and 200) of 3rd instar nymphs of RAA. Both predator species were more voracious as their age increased. The satiation level, i.e. the highest number of consumed RAA, reached on average of 17.8, 36.3, 49.4, 79.6, 62.9 and 84.3 aphids per day for H1, H2, H3, H4, F3 and F4, respectively. In the combined treatments, there was little evidence of intraguild predation. Only 2.9% of H1 and H2 died or disappeared at low RAA densities ( 90%) of RAA. Our results point to the use of combinations of these two predator species, especially of their oldest instars, as promising aphidophagous candidates in early spring against RAA.

Meurgey, François, Ramage, Thibault (2020): Challenging the Wallacean shortfall: A total assessment of insect diversity on Guadeloupe (French West Indies), a checklist and bibliography. Insecta Mundi 2020 (786): 1-183, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5353608, {"references": ["Adamson, A. M. 1938. Notes on termites destructive to buildings in the Lesser Antilles. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 15: 220-224.", "Aiguillon B., and B. Borthury. 2017. Les termites des iles de la Guadeloupe. Rapport d'etude. Parc National de la Guadeloupe; Saint-Claude, Guadeloupe. 162 p.", "Allemand, R., C. Lemaitre, F. Frey, M. Bouletreau, F. Vavre, G. Nordlander, J. van Alphen, and Y. Carton. 2002. Phylogeny of six African Leptoptilina species (Hymenoptera; Cynipoidea, Figitidae) parasitoids of Drosophila, with description of three new species. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France 38: 319-332.", "Ashmead, W. H. 1900. Report upon the aculeate Hymenoptera of the islands of St Vincent and Grenada, with additions to the parasitic Hymenoptera and a list of the described Hymenoptera of the West Indies. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 2: 207-367.", "Badonnel, A. 1981. Psocopteres geophiles des Petites Antilles. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du sol 18(3): 425-434.", "Balke, M., J. Hajek, and L. Hendrich. 2017. Generic reclassification of species formerly included in Rhantus Dejean (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Colymbetinae). Zootaxa 4258(1): 91-100.", "Balmford, A., and K. J. Gaston. 1999. Why biodiversity surveys are good value. Nature 398: 204-205.", "Barbut, J., and B. Lalanne-Cassou. 2009. Contribution a la connaissance des Noctuidea des Antilles et descriptions de quatre nouvelles especes (Lepidoptera). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France 114(4): 409-418.", "Barbut, J., and B. Lalanne-Cassou. 2010. Description d'une nouvelle especede Mythimna Ochsenheimer, 1816, sous-genre Pseudaletia Franclemont, 1951 (Lepidoptera Noctuidae Hadeninae). L'Entomologiste 66(3): 117-121.", "Barnes, M. J. C. 1993. Papillons de nuit (Lepidopteres) recoltes par M.J.C. Barnes dans le Parc National de la Guadeloupe. Rapport dactylographie. PRAG; Guadeloupe. 25 p. + pl.", "Barre, N. 1991. Arthropodes d'importance veterinaire pour les petits ruminants des Antilles et de Guyane. Revue d'Elevage et de Medecine Veterinaire des Pays Tropicaux, Numero Special: 133-138.", "Beard, J. S. 1949. The natural vegetation of the Windward and Leeward Islands. Oxford Forestry Memoirs 21: 1-192.", "Beccaloni, G. and P. Eggleton. 2013. Order Blattodea. p. 46-48. In: Z.-Q. Zhang, (ed.). Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness (Addenda 2013). Zootaxa 3703: 1-82.", "Becker, V. O. 2002. The Geometroidea (Lepidoptera) from Cuba described by Herrich-Schaffer in the Gundlach collection, Havana. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 19(2): 393-417.", "Belkin, J. N. and S. J. Heinemann. 1976. Collection Records of the Project \"Mosquitoes of Middle America\". 5. French West Indies: Guadeloupe (FWI) and Martinique (FWIM, MAR). Mosquito Systematics 8(2): 163-193.", "Bennett, F. D., H. Glenn, and R. M. Baranowski. 1993. Goetheana shakespearei (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) an immigrant parasitoid of thrips in Florida and Guadeloupe. The Florida Entomologist 76(2): 395-397.", "Bensted-Smith, R. 2002. A biodiversity vision for the Galapagos Islands. Charles Darwin Foundation and World Wildlife Fund; Galapagos, Ecuador. 141 p.", "Bequaert, J. C. 1948. The Genus Pachodynerus (Hymenoptera, Vespidae) in the Antilles. Psyche 55(3): 105-112.", "Bigot, L., and J. Etienne. 2009. Les Pterophoridae de l'ile de la Guadeloupe (Lepidoptera). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 114(4): 463-467.", "Bland, R. G., and L. Desutter-Grandcolas. 2003. An annotated list of Orthoptera from St Eustatius and Saba, Dutch West Indies, with descriptions of new cricket species (Trigonidiidae, Mogoplistidae). Journal of Orthoptera Research 12(2): 115-126.", "Bonfils, J. 1966. Contribution a l'etude des Orthopteroides des Antilles. II. Sur deux especes nouvelles ou peu connues (Orth. Tettigoniidae Pseudoplyllinae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 71: 77-83.", "Bonfils J. 1969. Catalogue raisonne des insectes des Antilles francaises. 2. Dictyoptera: Blattaria et Mantida. Annales de zoologie, ecologie animale 1(2): 107-120.", "Bonfils, J. 1972. Catalogue raisonne des insectes des Antilles francaises. 5. Dermaptera. Annales de zoologie, ecologie animale 4(3): 271-280.", "Bonfils, J., and A. Delplanque. 1971. Distribution des principales cicadelles des prairies aux Antilles francaises. Annales de zoologie, ecologie animale 3(2): 135-150.", "Bonfils, J., S. Quilici, and B. Reynaud. 1994. Les Hemipteres Auchenorhynques de l'Ile de la Reunion. Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 99(3): 227-240.", "Borkent, A. 2008. The frog-biting midges of the world (Corethrellidae: Diptera). Zootax, 1804: 1-456.", "Borkent, A. 2014. The pupae of the biting midges of the world (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), with a generic key and analysis of the phylogenetic relationships between genera. Zootaxa 3879(1): 1-327.", "Botosaneanu, L. 1988. Trichopteres de la Martinique. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France (Nouvelle Serie) 24: 215-228.", "Botosaneanu, L. 1989. Seconde contribution a l'etude des Trichopteres de la Martinique. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (Nouvelle Serie) 25(1): 95-104.", "Botosaneanu, L. 1990. Results of a trichopterological (Insecta: Trichoptera) travel to the Lesser Antilles in 1989. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Entomologie 60: 39-48.", "Botosaneanu, L. 1994. Les Trichopteres de la Guadeloupe. Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (Nouvelle Serie) 30(1): 33-54.", "Botosaneanu, L. 2000. Etude d'une faunule madicole de Guadeloupe: complements a la connaissance des Trichopteres (Tricoptera) de l'ile. Annales de Limnologie 36(4): 249-259.", "Botosaneanu, L. 2002. An annotated checklist of caddisflies from the Caribbean islands, with distribu- tion and bibliography (Insecta, Trichoptera). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 107(1): 79-108.", "Botosaneanu, L., and J. Sykora. 1973. Sur quelques Trichopteres (Insecta: Trichoptera) de Cuba. p. 379-424. In: T. Orghidan (ed.). Resultats des Expeditions Biospeologiques cubano-roumaines a Cuba, volume 1. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania; Bucharest. 424 p.", "Boucher, S., A. M. Dutrillaux, and B. Dutrillaux. 2015. Parthenogenetic reproduction demonstrated in the diploid Spasalus puncticollis (Le Peletier & Serville 1825), n. stat., from the Antilles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Passalidae). Comptes Rendus Biologies 338: 738-744.", "Boykin, L. M., P. De Barro, D. G. Hall, W. B. Hunter, C. L. McKenzie, C. A. Powell, and R. G. Shetters. 2012. Overview of worldwide diversity of Diaphorina citri Kuwayama mitochondrial cytochrome oxydase 1 haplotypes: two Old World lineages and a New World invasion. Bulletin of Entomological Research 102(5): 573-582.", "Brambila, J. 2000. A Review of Cligenes with the description of a new genus, Valeris (Hemiptera: Rhyparochromidae: Antillocorini). The Florida Entomologist 83(3): 303-315.", "Branger, G. 1972. Observations sur Uthetheisa ornatrix L. en Martinique et Guadeloupe. Alexanor 7(7): 290-296.", "Brevignon, C. 2000. Description d'un nouveau Lycaenidae provenant de la foret cotiere guadeloupeenne (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Theclinae). Lambillionea 100(4): 625-629.", "Brevignon, C. 2001. Le genus Chlorostrymon Clench, 1961 en Guadeloupe (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Theclinae). Lambillionea 101(4): 561-566.", "Brevignon, C. 2003. Les papillons diurnes de la Guadeloupe (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae, Hesperioidea). Lambillionea 103(2): 1-29.", "Brevignon, C. 2004. Description de deux nouvelles sous-especes guadeloupeennes du genus Junonia Hubner, 1819 (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae, Nymphalinae). Lambillionea 104(1): 72-80.", "Brevignon, C., and L. Brevignon. 2003. Papillons de jour des Antilles francaises. PLB editions; Abymes, Guadeloupe. 64 p.", "Budesinsky, M. I., E. Valtarova, E. Semon, E. Cancello, and C. Bordereau. 2005. NMR structure determination of (11E)-trinervita-1(14),2,11 -triene, a new diterpene from sexual glands of termites. Tetrahedron 61: 10699-10704.", "Buenaventura, E., and T. Pape. 2013. Revision of the New World genus Peckia Robineau-Desvoidy (Diptera: Sarcophagidae). Zootaxa 3622 (1): 1-87.", "Capy, P., J. R. David, R. Allemand, Y. Carton, G. Febvay, and A. Kermarec. 1986. Genetic analysis of Drosophila melanogaster in the French West Indies and comparison with populations from other parts of the world. Genetica 69: 167-176.", "Cardoso, P., T. L. Erwin, P. A. V. Borges, and T. R. New. 2011. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biological Conservation 144: 2647-2655.", "Carpintero, D. L. 2002. Catalogue of the Neotropical Anthocoridae (Heteroptera). Revista de la Sociedad Entomologica Argentina 61(1-2): 25-44.", "Carpintero, D. L., and P. M. Anddelape. 2012. Neotropical Scolopini (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Anthocoridae): new taxa, diagnostic characters and a key to the genera of the tribe. Acta Entomologica Musei Naturalis Pragae 52: 49-66.", "Carvalho, J. C. M. 1985. Mirideos neotropicais, CCXLIX: Especies novas da tribo Hyaliodini Carvalho Drake (Hemiptera). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 44(3): 363-376.", "Carvalho, J. C. M. 1989. Mirideos Neotropicais CCCXV: novas especies da subfamilia Bryocorinae Douglas and Scott (Hemiptera). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 61(1): 105-113.", "Carvalho, J. C. M., and L. A. A. Costa. 1996. The genus Fulvius from the Americas (Hemiptera: Miridae). Annales del Institudo de Biologia del Universidad Autonomia de Mexico 65(1): 63-135.", "Celini, L., V. Roy, J. H. C. Delabie, S. Caquineau, K. Questel, and P. Mora. 2013. Premiers signalements de Cyphomyrmex minutus Mayr, 1862 a Saint-Barthelemy, Petites Antilles, et au Mexique (Hymenoptera, Formicidae, Attini). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 118(3): 393-398.", "Chalumeau, F. 1983. Les Coleopteres scarabaeides des Petites Antilles (Guadeloupe a Martinique). Encyclopedie Entomologique (serie 44). Editions Lechevalier; Paris. 295 p.", "Chalumeau, F., and E. Benito-Espinal. 1984. Deux Ctenuchidae (Lepidoptera) ravageurs du laurierrose aux Antilles francaises. Bulletin mensuel de la Societe linneenne de Lyon 5: 175-182.", "Chalumeau, F., and A. Delplanque. 1978. Catalogue commente des Ctenuchidae (Lepidoptera) des Antilles francaises. Bulletin de la Societe Linneenne de Lyon 47(4): 176-187.", "Chalumeau, F., and A. Delplanque. 1985. Les Insectes de la Guadeloupe et des iles avoisinantes. Centre Departemental de la Documentation Pedagogique; Pointe-a-Pitre, Guadeloupe. 45 p.", "Chalumeau, F., and J. Touroult. 2005. Les longicornes des Petites Antilles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae): taxonomie, ethologie, biogeographie. Series Faunistica 51. Pensoft Publishers; Sofia-Moscow. 241 p.", "Chassain, J., and J. Touroult. 2014. Les Eucnemides des Antilles francaises (Coleoptera, Eucnemidae). p. 39-45. In: J. Touroult (coord.). Contribution a l'etude des Coleopteres des Petites Antilles - Tome II. Supplement au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France \" Le Coleopteriste \": 1-112.", "Claret, J., and Y. Carton. 1980. Diapause in a tropical species, Cothonaspis boulardi (Parasitic Hymenoptera). Oecologia 45: 32-34.", "Clastrier, J., and J. Legrand. 1984. Forcipomyia (Pterobosca) pinheyi nouvelle espece de l'ile Maurice parasite des ailes de libellules et nouvelles localisations du Subgenus (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae; Odonata). Revue francaise d'entomologie (N.S.) 6(4): 173-180.", "Cochereau, P. 1989. Les travaux de recherche francais en zone tropicale sur les noctuelles et pyrales du mais: synthese bibliographique. L'Agronomie tropicale 44(2): 137-142.", "Cochereau, P. 1991. Installation en Guadeloupe de Cotesia flavipes Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), un parasite larvaire foreur de la canne a sucre Diatrea saccharalis L. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). p. 443-450. In: INRA (ed.). Rencontres Caraibes en lutte biologique, Colloques de l'INRA, 58. INRA; Paris.", "Cochereau, P., and A. Jean-Bart. 1990. Echantillonnages sur canne a sucre en Grande-Terre (Guadeloupe). Les pertes de tonnage sur pied et leurs causes. ORSTOM, INRA; Pointe a Pitre. 24 p.", "Constantin, R. 2017. Le genre Ablechrus Waterhouse en Martinique, avec la description d'une espece nouvelle (Coleoptera, Cleroidea, Malachiidae). p. 34-37. In: J. Touroult (coord.). Contribution a l'etude des Coleopteres des Petites Antilles - Tome III. Supplement au Bulletin de liaison d'ACOREP-France \" Le Coleopteriste \": 1-72.", "Corbet, P. S. 1999. Dragonflies: Behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Harley Books; Colchester. 829 p.", "Cordeiro, I. R., and F. F. Moreira. 2015. New distributional data on aquatic and semiaquatic bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerromorpha & Nepomorpha) from South America. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: 1-30.", "Courtney, G. W., and C. L. Hogue. 2018. A review of the net-winged midges (Diptera: Blephariceridae) of the West Indies, with description of a new species from Puerto Rico. Aquatic Insects 39(2-3): 117-154.", "D'Aguilar, J. 1966. Catalogue raisonne des Insectes des Antilles francaises 1. Lepidopteres, Sphingidae. Annales des Epiphyties 1950 17: 251-262.", "Daigle, J. J. 2007. Macrothemis meurgeyi spec. nov. from Guadeloupe (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Odonatologica 36(2): 191-195.", "Darlington, J. P. E. C. 1992. Survey of termites in Guadeloupe, Lesser Antilles (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae). The Florida Entomologist 75(1): 104-109.", "David, J. 1973. Activite nycthemerale de quelques especes de Drosophila (Diptera, Drosophilidae) de la Guadeloupe: Importance de la methode de piegeage. Annales de zoologie, ecologie animale 5: 499-506.", "Delattre, P. 1978. Conditions d'etablissement et de dispersion en Guadeloupe d' Apanteles flavipes (Hym; Braconidae), parasite des Pyrales de la Canne a sucre du genus Diatraea (Lep; Pyralidae). Entomophaga 23(1): 43-50.", "Delecolle, J. C. and J. P. Rieb. 1994. Contribution a l'etude des Ceratopogonides de la Guadeloupe. Description de trois especes nouvelles, appartenant aux genres Dasyhelea et Atrichopogon (Diptera, Nematocera). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France 99: 267-279.", "Delplanque, A. 1976. Les insectes ravageurs du sorgho en Guadeloupe. Nouvelles agronomiques des Antilles et de la Guyane 2(1): 15-20.", "Delplanque, A., and F., Chalumeau. 1985. Insectes de la Guadeloupe et iles avoisinantes. CDDP de la Guadeloupe, Pointe-a-Pitre, Guadeloupe. 45 p.", "Delvare, G. 1993. Sur les Megaphragma de Guadeloupe avec la description d'une espece nouvelle (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae). Revue Francaise d'Entomologie (N.S.) 15(4): 149-152.", "Descoins, C., B. Lalanne-Cassou, C. Malosse, and M. L. Milat. 1986. Analyse de la pheromone sexuelle emise par la femelle vierge de Mocis latipes (Guenee) (Noctuidae, Catocalinae) de Guadeloupe, Antilles francaises. Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Sciences de Paris 302: 509-512.", "Descoins, C., J. F. Silvain, B. Lalanne-Cassou, and H. Cheron. 1988. Surveillance d'insectes ravageurs des cultures par piegeage sexuel des males dans les departements de la Guadeloupe et de la Guyane. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment 21(1-2): 53-65.", "Dommanget, J. L. 2000. Note preliminaire sur les collections d'Odonates exotiques mises a disposition de la SFO. Martinia 16(3): 133.", "Donnelly, T. W. 1970. The Odonata of Dominica, British West Indies. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 37: 1-20.", "Dumas, L. L., and J. L. Nessimian. 2012. Faunistic catalog of the caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera of Parque Nacional do Itatiaia and its surroundings in South Brazil. Journal of Insect Science 12(25): 1-40.", "Dumbardon-Martial, E. 2015. Les Asilidae des Petites Antilles (Diptera). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 120(4): 465-472.", "Dumbardon-Martial, E. 2016. Pollen feeding in the larva of Toxomerus pulchellus (Diptera, Syrphidae). Bulletin de la Societe Entomologique de France 121(4): 413-420.", "Dumbardon-Martial, E. 2017. Decouverte en Guadeloupe de la Dexiine Beskia aelops (Walker, 1849) (Diptera, Tachinidae, Dexiinae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 122: 357-358.", "Dumbardon-Martial, E., and S. A. Marshall. 2015. New records and behavioral observations for Grallipeza Rondani from Guadeloupe and Martinique (Diptera, Micropezidae, Taeniapterinae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 120(1): 79-82.", "Dumbardon-Martial, E., and C. Pierre. 2016. Contribution a la faune entomologique de Guadeloupe: Diptera & Cicadomorpha. Parc National de Guadeloupe; Guadeloupe. 38 p.", "Esmenjaud, D. 1984. Les noctuelles (Lepidopteres Noctuidae) des Antilles francaises. Donnees biologiques pour la conception d'une protection integree du mais contre Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) et Heliothis zea (Boddie) en Guadeloupe. Ecole Nationale Superieure Agronomique; Montpellier, France. 194 p.", "Etienne, J. 2005. Les pucerons de Guadeloupe, des Grandes et des Petites Antilles (Hemiptera, Aphididae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 110(4-5): 455-462.", "Etienne, J., D. Burckhardt, and C. Grapin. 1998. Diaphorina citri (Kuwayama) en Guadeloupe, premier signalement pour les Caraibes (Hem., Psyllidae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 103(1): 32.", "Etienne, J., and P. Champoiseau. 2011. Signalement de deux Pucerons nouveaux pour la Guadeloupe (Hemiptera, Aphididae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France, 116(3): 327-328.", "Etienne, J., and E. Dumbardon-Martial. 2013. Quadrastichus erythrinae Kim: un redoutable ravageur pour les erythrines de Guadeloupe et de Martinique (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae, Tetrastichinae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 118(2): 155-158.", "Etienne, J., and R. Gagne. 2017. Les Cecidomyiidae de l'ile de la Guadeloupe et recapitulatif des especes connues des Caraibes (Diptera). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 122(4): 455-466.", "Etienne, J., and M. Martinez. 2003. Les Agromyzidae de Guadeloupe: especes nouvelles et notes additionnelles (Diptera). Nouvelle revue d'Entomologie 19(3): 249-272.", "Etienne, J., M. Martinez, and G. Boecasse. 2004. Premiere signalisation averee du ravageur Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch) dans la region neotropicale (Dipt. Agromyzidae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 109(1): 93-105.", "Etienne, J., and D. Matile-Ferrero. 2008. Crypticerya genistae (Hempel), nouveau danger en Guadeloupe (Hemiptera, Coccoidea, Monophlebidae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 113(4): 517-520.", "Etienne, J., D. Matile-Fererro, and T. Kondo. 2014. Phalacrococcus howertoni Hodges and Hodgson (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae), a new soft scale record for the island of Guadeloupe. Revista Corpoica, Ciencia y Tecnologia Agropecuaria 15(1): 115-118.", "Etienne, J., D. Matile-Ferrero, F. Leblanc, and D. Marival. 1998. Premier signalement de la cochenille Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) en Guadeloupe; situation actuelle de ce ravageur des cultures dans les Antilles francaises (Hemiptera; Pseudococcidae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 103(2): 159-173.", "Etienne, J., B. Michel, and C. Grapin. 2018. Premier signalement du Puceron Sarucallis kahawaluokalani (Kirkaldy, 1907) et de ses ennemis naturels en Guadeloupe (Hemiptera, Aphididae). Bulletin de la Societe entomologique de France 123(4): 447-450", "Etienne, J., S. Quilici, D. Marival, and A. Franck. 2001. Biological control of Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) in Guadeloupe by imported Tamarixia radiata (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Fruits 56(5): 307-315.", "Etienne, J., P. Ryckewaert, and B. Michel. 2015. Thrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) of Guadeloupe and Martinique: Updated check-list with new information on their ecology and natural enemies. Florida Entomologist 98(1): 298-304.", "Etienne, J., and J. C. Streito. 2008. Premier signalement en Guadeloupe et en Martinique de Pseudacysta perseae (Heidemann, 1908), u

In the present study, the somatic and gametic chromosome numbers in fifteen species of insects from Argentina are reported. Said species are characterized for their economic importance as pest of crops or as agricultural pest controllers. The species belonged to the following orders and families: Neuroptera, Chrysopidae: Ceraeochrysa cincta (n = 5 + XY), Ceraeochrysa paraguaria (n = 5 + XY), Chrysoperla argentina (n = 5 + XY), Chrysoperla asoralis (n = 5 + XY), Chrysoperla externa (n = 5 + XY), Leucochrysa cruentata (n = 7 + XY) y Plesiochrysa elongate (n = 5 + XY), Coleoptera, Coccinellidae: Cyclonela sanguinea (n = 9 + XYp), Eriopis connexa (n = 9 + XYp), Harmonia axyridis (n = 7 + XYp), Hippodamia convergens (n = 9 + XYp), y Melyridae: Astylus atromaculatus (n = 8 + XYp), Dermaptera, Forficulidae: Doru lineare (2n = 20) and D. luteipes (2n = 20), Diptera, Ulidiidae: Euxesta eluta (n = 5 + XY). Chromosomal information for six species and additional gametic chromosome number for Euxesta eluta are established for the first time. In addition, a new chromosome number is cited for Astylus atromaculatus that is different to the one previously reported.