English: Series of nymph and resulting imago of a Guanchia sp. male (very probably G. pubescens) from the Pyrenees, kindly sent to me by the Van Middelkoop family (thanks! :o). July-August 2015.

Note the following:
1) The animal had moulted into a final instar nymph during mail transport. In the process the right wing casing (on mesothorax) must have sustained slight damage, which has also resulted in a slightly warped right wing case on the imago, so the shape of the right hand wing casing is not representative of Guanchia (the left hand side is good though).
2) The forceps seem to have come out sub-standard for "full specification" Guanchia pubescens. Most notably the large inside tooth on the apex of the sub-parallel base of the forceps should be extending to the rear in a somewhat sharp point according to the pubescens-handbook. Other Guanchia species, unknown from the collection region, may have forceps shaped somewhat like this, hence ID is slightly iffy. That said: Notable variation in forceps size and expression of teeth etc. is very common on earwigs so this shouldn't be too much of a killjoy. Also, I have seen other images of earwigs taken in the wild and identified as Gianchia pubescens with forceps just like the ones on this animal, but of course identifications on the internet are not very trustworthy to begin with. Worst case, this might be a closely related Guanchia not recorded for the area before, but that scenario is really way more unlikely than a pubescens with slightly reduced forceps build. May try to add images of genitalia later(?)
3) The number of antennal segments is asymetric, probably due to damage of the left antenna - use the right hand antenna for reference. On the nymph, the right hand antenna has 11 segments and the left hand antenna only 10. It is not unusual for nymphs to sustain damaged antennae during their development, but it means that for reference purposes of these images the right hand antenna should be used(!)

Illustrative use: Even with the "sub standard" features indicated above, it is my feeling that this series is worthwhile to share as it clearly illustrates some features that may prove useful in the identification of nymphs and imago, such as head structure and shape of eyes, density and length of hairs on abdomen and forceps, number and shape of antenna segments (use right hand antenna only!), shape/development of thoracic structures (use left hand side only!). As a side note: With the dark head and hairy forceps I did suspect it to be a nymph of Apterygida media at first. Surprise when the head came out so brightly orange and the wing casing (left) and forceps clearly of Guanchia type. This goes to indicate that the nymphs might easily be confused with A. media and these images may help to clear up identification issues at some point.