
Euborellia cincticollis (Gerstaecker, 1883) is a species of earwig in the family Anisolabididae. It is thought to be a native African species, that was introduced to the Americas probably around 1946.
Similar species: Earwigs

By Flown Kimmerling
All rights reserved
Uploaded Jan 18, 2019. Captured Jan 6, 2019 14:56 in 110 Earl St, Plainville, GA 30733, USA.
comments (10)
But ... *ROLLEYES* ... I completely forgot about your previous record for Georgia of a fully winged female, here on JD, where I had already noted that it might be worthwhile to collect a few specimen (preferably male) and send them in for positive ID, so that the presence of a viable population in Georgia may be documented properly :o)
Posted 6 years ago
In this species fully winged, completely wingless and anything in between occurs in both sexes, so that bit is not indicative, but as with all earwigs (at least in our areas) the adult males, as well as the nymphs of both sexes, have 10 abdominal segments and the adult females only 8. Additionally the adult males have modified forceps, which in this family mostly boils down to both forceps being bent at the tip and one of them more strongly so than the other.
A while back I had uploaded a (very ugly) montage to show this for Euborellia moesta:
My ID of your female is based on the full wings (rare in other species), the colour of the wings/tegmina and the pale ring in the antenna on one segment toward the tip.
My ID of your male is based on the complete absence of even rudimentary "flaps" where the tegmina (fore wings) would be (compare to my images of E. moesta - in most species these small flaps would be a constant factor, but with the complete range of "winglessness" in this species this form also occurs). Your male doesn't have any pale rings in the antennae (which occurs frequently in a few species that would often show pale rings), so that is of no help, but the antennae have too many segments for E.annulipes and fit nicely for adult cincticollis.
Together that is still a weak ID, but then I realized you had previously shown us the female photographed very, very nearby ... so, there it is :o) Posted 6 years ago, modified 6 years ago