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. aptera. 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.

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).

The family Gammaridae is a large monophyletic group with a complicated taxonomy. A nomenclatural review of the taxonomic status of Pectenogammarus Reid, 1940 was conducted based on Hou & Sket (2016) and Sket & Hou (2018) phylogenetic proposals. These authors used the name Homoeogammarus Schellenberg, 1937 for a set of morphologically diverse taxa previously included mainly within Echinogammarus Stebbing, 1899. Unfortunately, the use of the name Homoeogammarus Schellenberg, 1937 is problematic. As a result of a detailed bibliographic review, we propose the name Pectenogammarus Reid, 1940 (stat. nov.) for the “Homoeogammarus” clade (Sket & Hou 2018), which results in 20 new combinations. In addition, two genera are here formally synonymised as follows: Pectenogammarus Reid, 1940 = Homoeogammarus Barnard et Barnard, 1983, syn. nov. = Laurogammarus G.S. Karaman, 1984, syn. nov. A synonymic catalogue is provided.

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: Pseudochelidura cantabrica Cuesta-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.