## 4 Discussion
### The Utility of Barcoding for Earwigs  
Barcoding in the strict sense (matching barcode sequences of unknown specimens to those of known specimens) is of little use at present for Dermaptera in Australia and worldwide. Two species (_F_. _auricularia_ B and \(N\). _lividipes_) in the sample explored in this study were represented on the BOLD public repository and these were both readily identifiable by morphology in any case. In the absence of a previously sampled conspecific, an unknown specimen may be assigned correctly to genus, tribe, or family if the higher taxon is sufficiently sampled [100] but public BOLD records include only 16 individuals from the Anisolabididae family, the majority being either \(A\). _maritima_ or unidentified specimens from the _Antisolabis_ and _Euborellia_ Burr genera. GenBank is equally depauperate, although it does contain 24 _cox1_ sequences for _Antisolabis littorea_ ([PERSON]) from Goldberg and Trewick [101]. A BOLD identification search of a 658 bp \(L\). _truncata_ barcode sequence returned no hits, despite six known congeneric records (_L. riparian_). This echoes the findings of [PERSON] et al. (2012) and [PERSON] (2013); barcode reference databases show taxonomic skew at several scales, uneven coverage, and many unidentified specimens for which no additional data (e.g., photos, voucher information) are provided. A GenBank BLASTn search returned _L. riparian_ and _Labidura japonica_ ([PERSON]) as close matches, although members of other orders showed equal or higher sequence similarity as well. The sequence reported herein appear to be the first _L. truncata_ barcode sequences made publicly available. Pairwise distances to GenBank accessions support the distinction of _L. truncata_ as a separate species to _L. riparian_(34).  
Most of the species-identified Dermaptera records available via BOLD list either in-house identification methods (i.e., BOLD's Barcode Index Number system or tree-based methods) and the majority that report morphological identification use only digitised photos submitted to BOLD, not type material. The taxonomic literature consulted for species diagnoses in BOLD records is also not given. For the current set of earwig records, this is not necessarily problematic; the majority of records represent the well-sampled _F. auricularia_ species complex. However, for uncharacterised species such as those considered here, it is important to report how a specimen was identified, provide citations of the authoritative texts and keys and, where possible, original descriptions (104). This is especially relevant for taxa with significant taxonomic impediment such as the Dermaptera where the currently accepted Latin binomial and familial placement may require considerable command of a literature that is difficult to access, sparse, and occasionally self-contradictory (see (9)).  
Morphological assessments were equally challenging. Most specimens could not be identified to a known species using [PERSON] (6), suggesting that they are undescribed, or the available information is of insufficient detail. _Gonolabis forcipata_ was the only species that could be confidently identified, but type information only lists south-western WA whereas the specimens in the present study are from SA. All type specimens for described species are in Europe (see (9)), so it is difficult to determine whether SA represents a new location for this species.